Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 16 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Farmers (Paperwork)

Mr. Dover: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to reduce the amount of paperwork required of farmers. [27456]

The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): As part of the Government's war on waste initiative, we have recently conducted a comprehensive efficiency scrutiny on the burdens of paperwork on farmers. We included three working farmers in our team. The report is with Ministers, and we plan to publish it shortly for consultation.

Mr. Dover: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his reply. May I ask him to do two things? First, will he recognise that, with the problems of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the need for birth dates, sexes and mother-father records, he should ensure that the required amount of paperwork is again reviewed to ensure that a minimum burden is placed upon farmers? Secondly, will my hon. Friend ensure that the officials in the regional offices of his Ministry do not ask for an undue number of returns?

Mr. Boswell: I think that I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. We shall be as helpful as we possibly can and we shall reduce the burdens wherever we can. I am sure that he will appreciate that rules are rules and that we cannot give carte blanche to suspend the rules of payment schemes. We shall, however, be as flexible as possible in our interpretation of them.

Dairy Sector

Sir David Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector. [27485]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I regularly have meetings with representatives of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them.

Sir David Knox: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had any discussions with Agriculture Ministers in the European Union on the possibility of obtaining modifications to the milk quota regime, including cross-border arrangements?

Mr. Hogg: We have raised the issue on a number of occasions. The concept of transferability, as across the frontiers of member states, is attractive to us and we have pressed for it. At present, the concept has not been accepted by the member states, but we shall continue to press for it.

Mr. Alan Howarth: When the Minister next meets the president of the National Farmers Union, will he place on the agenda the prior options review of research? Will he report to his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who I understand is leading the review, the strongly held view of the NFU that it will be deeply damaging to prospects for the horticultural sector if Horticultural Research International, which has done everything that has been asked of it to a very high standard, is to be destabilised, whether through privatisation or withdrawal of public funding?

Mr. Hogg: With regard to the prior options review, I am sure that we are right to ask ourselves several essential questions about the way in which we provide for research, and try to identify the areas of research and the capacities that we need to have directly within the ring fence of the public sector, and those that can be dealt with in some other way, whether by way of privatisation or by contractorisation. Those seem to me to be proper questions to be addressed.

Mr. David Nicholson: I hope that, when my right hon. and learned Friend meets the president of the National Farmers Union, he will pass on the thanks of the Government and of Parliament for the enormous work that the president and his colleagues in the NFU have done to inform and help their many members, who have gone through a nightmarish six weeks with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy difficulty. That nightmare has affected many of their livelihoods and their futures. Will my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues ensure that the same quality and detailed information about the present culling process is coming from regional and area offices of the Ministry to the NFU and its members?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right when he says that the past eight weeks or so have been a period of great anxiety for the farming community. Farmers throughout the United Kingdom have acted with great responsibility and moderation in circumstances that must have been profoundly distressing to them. That also applies to the NFU and others who represent the industry. They have been extremely responsible and have served their members well. For our part, we are anxious to ensure that


the farming community has all the information it needs, which is one reason why there was a mail shot to every farmer last weekend.

Mr. Tyler: With regard to the dairy herd, can the Minister confirm, as would seem to be the case from his letter to me following our exchanges last week, that contaminated feed appears to be only the main path for BSE infection? What other paths have been identified? Have those been discussed with the NFU, and does the Minister believe that his present cull programme will effectively eradicate them?

Mr. Hogg: If we stand back and ask why we have had as many BSE—infected calves born after the ban as we have, I am sure that the answer lies in contaminated feeding stuffs. There is no doubt that, notwithstanding the ban that was put in place at the end of the 1980s, there was a continuous flow, either in the feed mills or in the farms, of—if I might use jargon rather than be precise—contaminated feedstuffs. That is why we imposed the prohibition in April to prevent the incorporation of any mammalian protein into any feed rations for any farm animal.

Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, like beef exports, dairy sector exports have also been hard hit as a result of the BSE scare? This is the third time that I have raised this matter in the past week. If the Government believe that the worldwide ban is illegal, is it not now time for the Government to go out and actively promote the sale of British beef and dairy products to countries outside the European Union?

Mr. Hogg: For these purposes, a distinction has to be drawn between dairy and beef products. We have succeeded in obtaining the lifting of a number of bans in respect of dairy products—for example, in Thailand, Malaysia, Egypt, Peru and Brazil—but we have greater difficulties with regard to beef and beef products because a number of long-standing bans are in place against their export. There are also, of course, many recently imposed national bans. It will be some time before we persuade those third countries to relax their national bans. It would be enormously helpful if the European Union would do that, because that would be an important example to third countries. That is one reason why we place such importance on achieving that objective.

Dr. Strang: When the Minister meets the president of the NFU, will he explain to him why the Government are seeking to deny the House of Commons the opportunity to express its views on a proper motion in the agriculture debate next week? That debate will be of great importance to the dairy sector during the BSE crisis—the biggest crisis to hit our agriculture this century. Why is the Minister ignoring the recommendation of the Select Committee on European Legislation that there should be an early debate in the House rather than in European Standing Committee A? What is he afraid of?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be making his business statement shortly. He will find, from what my

right hon. Friend says, that the House will have a full opportunity next week to discuss all the matters about which right hon. and hon. Members are concerned.

Mr. Barry Field: In preparation for his next meeting with the president of the NFU, will my right hon. and learned Friend ask his officials to contact the Isle of Wight branch to listen to its members' worries about animal welfare during the present crisis? The matter was raised with me at a farmers' meeting on Saturday, and again on Tuesday.
I strongly support the NFU's campaign for compulsory listing of ingredients on the labelling of feed when it is supplied to farmers. It is amazing that, after all that has happened during this crisis, farmers can still buy feed without knowing what is in it.

Mr. Hogg: Animal welfare is indeed very important and the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), has been active in addressing it. If members of the Isle of Wight branch of the NFU have further points to make, we shall be pleased to hear from them.
I note with interest what my hon. Friend said about labelling.

Animal Slaughter

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for changes in the arrangements for the protection of environmental and public health in connection with the slaughtering of animals. [27457]

Mr. Boswell: We are always prepared to make any appropriate changes to our arrangements which are recommended on the basis of the best scientific advice in the interests of the environment and public health.

Mr. Hughes: It follows from recent announcements by the Minister that in the next few months abattoirs will be called on to deal both with uninfected cattle—as in the normal course of events—and with infected cattle. What steps are being taken to reassure the proprietors of abattoirs and, more important, the public that there can and will be no risk of cross-infection while people are trying to do the difficult job of separating infected from uninfected cattle?

Mr. Boswell: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has not expressed himself precisely. There is no question of infected cattle being treated in that way in abattoirs, because they will be destroyed by incineration. I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, however. We have imposed the most stringent possible controls for the separation of the various types of material: for instance, all specified bovine material is being stained blue and all cattle being slaughtered under the 30-month scheme are being stained yellow. Regular checks and inspections will be carried out to ensure that those controls are followed rigorously and that the different materials are kept separate, and there are signs that abattoirs and the trade are co-operating fully.

Mr. Nicholls: Has my hon. Friend considered the public health implications of the fact that BSE is considerably more rife on the Continent than is currently being admitted? I have already sent that information to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. Has my hon. Friend considered whether it is necessary to protect the British public by imposing a ban on products bought from abroad, given that conditions and safeguards abroad are nowhere near as good as ours? Indeed, has he considered imposing a worldwide ban on exports of such products from other European countries?

Mr. Boswell: I note what my hon. Friend has said, and the representations that he has made to my right hon. and learned Friend. The question of a ban would be a matter for the Government's advisers, and no doubt it could appropriately be considered in due course.

Mr. Garrett: Between 1988 and 1991, some 360 BSE-infected carcases were disposed of in a refuse tip in Norfolk. How general was that practice at the time, and what research has been carried out into the risk of leaching of infected matter from open refuse tips?

Mr. Boswell: It is a matter of record that the rules governing the disposal of BSE-infected carcases have been progressively tightened. As I have told the House, a move was made at about that time to complete incineration of those carcases. As for any potential risk caused by carcases going into landfill, I have no evidence from the experts, including those at the Environment Agency, of any danger to the public. That is not surprising, as there is no evidence that the infectious organism persists in the soil.

Lady Olga Maitland: While we are discussing health and safety, does my hon. Friend agree that unfounded scaremongering is downright disgraceful? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that Wimpy is now ignoring that scaremongering and is rightly returning British beef to its menus? We should all go straight into a Wimpy bar this weekend.

Mr. Boswell: I should be delighted to engage in an excursion there in due course; perhaps my hon. Friend would care to join me. Wimpy has commendably recognised the scientific advice that is available to all such burger chains. It is a matter of considerable regret that one or two others, despite the advice that they acknowledge, have not yet seen fit to return to the entirely safe and sensible practice of buying and serving British beef.

Leather Industry

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to assist hide and skin merchants and their employees who have been adversely affected by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy situation; and if he will make a statement. [27458]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): The Government have taken a wide range of measures to rebuild consumer confidence and to get the

beef market moving again, which will assist all sectors associated with the beef industry. Supplies of hides from the 30-month slaughter scheme are now available to the hide and skin merchants. I hope that that will help the hon. Gentleman who is interested in this subject.

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful for that reply, but I do not think that it deals with the situation. Is the Minister aware of the serious plight that faces companies such as Wescot Hides in my constituency? A ban has been placed on the export of controlled hides arising from the slaughter of cows over 30 months old. What measures does the Minister propose to protect and underpin the value of those hides?

Mrs. Browning: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is awaiting a reply, which I understand will soon be forthcoming from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to whom the hon. Gentleman has written about Wescot Hides and the effect on its business. We do not think that hides should be included in the worldwide ban. My right hon. Friend will address that point when he replies to the hon. Gentleman.
Meetings have taken place between industry representatives and officials to arrange for hides to be taken at least to the wet, blue stage, which is the first stage in the tanning process, so that the industry does not lose out on the opportunity for more hides that will now become available in the domestic market.
I realise that the industry has had a difficult time until now because of the short-term shortage, but I hope that what I have outlined will assist the industry and the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The supply that I have mentioned will be available, and we shall do all we can to restore the export market as quickly as possible.

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend has been helpful in discussing the allied trade of beef head boning with me. She knows how highly specialised are firms in that trade. They tend to specialise only in that business and they have been wiped out. What plans has my hon. Friend to compensate such firms?

Mrs. Browning: Yesterday I wrote to the solicitors representing the head boning industry who had been to see us. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government's policy of putting public money into the industry generally has been targeted at restoring the movement of the beef trade from the farm to the abattoirs and slaughterhouses and then to the renderers. It has not been Government policy directly to compensate people who have lost money over this matter, and I regret to tell my hon. Friend that there is no offer of compensation for the head boning industry.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met farmers' representatives to discuss bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [27459]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We meet frequently.

Mr. Dowd: In those frequent meetings—I do not know how recent they are—have the farmers' representatives given the Minister any idea that they are now satisfied that the confusion and chaos surrounding the introduction of the 30-month culling programme last week have been overcome? If not, can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that the programme is now working as it was intended to work? On the broader question of the international ban on beef products, is it not the case that if the Government had acted with dispatch and urgency, when the ban was first imposed by countries such as the United States and Australia, much of the pain, grief and hardship of the past eight weeks could have been avoided?

Mr. Hogg: When I attend the Council, one of the problems I have to face is the fact that the remarks by some Opposition Members are always played back to me. We must not underestimate the ill effects of intemperate language by, for example, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). The hon. Gentleman asked about the 30-month slaughter policy. It is picking up and it is important that we get it running fully effectively. I hope that we shall shortly be able to slaughter at the rate of about 25,000 animals a week.

Sir John Cope: Will my right hon. and learned Friend help our farmers' representatives to get across to their continental counterparts the fact that continental Governments' actions and statements during this difficult period have damaged their domestic beef markets more than our Government's statements and actions have damaged the market here? It is important for continental farmers and continental Ministers to realise that fact, because once they do they will have a much greater incentive to lift the beef ban and to take different action. The damage to their markets has been much greater, whereas our Government's actions have helped to protect the domestic beef market here, despite the scaremongering to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is true that beef consumption has fallen further in some member states than here. It is in those member states' interests that the ban should be lifted. The discussion and the argument surrounding the ban, always public at the time of the Agriculture Council and continuously in the newspapers both here and abroad, are not only unjustified, but positively damaging to the interests of member states and their agriculture, so I share my right hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Salmond: What assessment does the Minister make of any Commission recommendation to lift the ban on beef by-products? Would he argue that that is an admission of the principle of the resumption of exports and could be the first step in leading all exports back on to European markets? If that is the position, is he prepared to argue the case for Scotland and Northern Ireland and our quality beef production, a case in which interest has been shown and for which sympathy has been expressed by many European farm Ministers?
Finally, on the subject of loose tongues, will the Minister remind his Back Benchers and those who have been speculating about trade wars that, although the United Kingdom as a whole has a substantial deficit

with the rest of Europe, Scotland has a substantial surplus, and that in Scotland—and, I believe, in Northern Ireland—we are more interested in getting our beef back on to European markets than in the internal politics of the Conservative party?

Mr. Hogg: The Commission proposals to relax the ban in relation to gelatine, tallow and semen, are justified by scientific evidence, and I hope that next week's standing veterinary committee meeting will endorse the Commission proposals. It is true that one could proceed step by step thereafter, leading, I hope, to a swift lifting of the ban entirely. In that context, we are considering the concept of establishing certification for mature herds, in terms both exempting them from the 30-month rule here and of constituting another step in the relaxation of the ban. Scotland and perhaps Northern Ireland in particular would benefit from that latter approach, so the scheme would be of particular value both to Scotland and to Northern Ireland.

Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the farming community has welcomed the letter he sent it last weekend, but can he give us any indication of when farmers will know when their cattle due for slaughter will be called forward? We are having a late spring, food stocks are appallingly low and farmers are worried stiff that they will have to keep cattle probably for another five or six weeks without knowing what is happening.

Mr. Hogg: It is not within the capacity of MAFF to organise the prioritisation of cattle for slaughter. That can be done only between marts, abattoirs and farmers. The Ministry cannot determine a ranking system for that purpose. What is important, however, is to ensure that the rendering industry is capable of rendering to its maximum capacity as speedily as possible. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has recently had encouraging discussions with the rendering industry, especially yesterday. It is also important that we should try to increase the throughput of the slaughterhouses by providing, for example, cold storage facilities so that carcases which cannot at present be rendered can be taken into cold storage.

Dr. Strang: Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's objective to eliminate BSE from our cattle? He has made it clear this afternoon that the Government still believe that the cause of that terrible disease is contaminated feed. Has he had an opportunity to consider my request for an investigation into the fact that two thirds of the new cases of BSE are in cattle born after the feed ban, which came into operation eight years ago? Surely there could be great benefit in tracing the cause of those cases. What have we got to lose by trying to find out precisely how those animals came to eat contaminated feed?

Mr. Hogg: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern, which he has raised with me. I have today signed a letter to him setting out my considered conclusions. I am sorry that he has not yet received it. We are confident that the reason for the disease in calves born after the ban was contaminated feedstuffs. That is why in April we imposed a total prohibition on the incorporation of any mammalian


protein into food rations for any farm animals. By that step I think that we have removed the possibility of, in any sense, contaminated rations being fed to cattle. That is a step change which should lead to a steady eradication of the condition in the British herd.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the British public are rapidly losing patience with the Europeans? If they continue to procrastinate over lifting the ban, despite the fact that the Agriculture Commissioner has said that there is nothing wrong with British beef, is not the time rapidly approaching when we should take retaliatory action? Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is a bigger problem in cost and overall effect on this country than when Argentina occupied the Falklands? If we had dilly-dallied then as we are now, the Falklands would still be occupied.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that public and political opinion are running out of patience with member states' refusal to lift the ban. That is entirely true. It is something that I impress on Agriculture Ministers whenever I meet them—for example, at the informal Council at the beginning of this week. When my hon. Friend talks about retaliation, I hope that he will ask himself whether whatever retaliation he has in mind would be more or less likely to advance our interests than the present policy of seeking to obtain by persuasion a relaxation of the ban. One should not do anything that would be positively injurious to our interests.

Food Safety

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met consumer representatives to discuss Government policy on food safety. [27460]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Khabra: When the Minister met consumer representatives, did they tell him that there is still no confidence in the safety of British beef, that at least 48 per cent. of slaughterhouses were breaking the BSE controls last September and that 10 slaughterhouses were breaking the rules this March? What has the Minister told those representatives and what confidence has he given to them?

Mr. Hogg: I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of consumer organisations yesterday. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assertion that consumer confidence has not been restored; it is recovering. Consumption is moving upwards; some of the figures suggest that it is at about 80 per cent. There is a substantial recovery.
It is true that during the latter part of last year there were examples of non-compliance with the controls in certain slaughterhouses, and that is worrying. That is why I have called in representatives of the industry on a number of separate occasions.
The audits that we have been carrying out recently show an enormous improvement in compliance, which is reflected in the control report that the European Commission made to the Council.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage, from that Dispatch Box, consumer representatives to ask retailers and restaurants throughout the United Kingdom to stock that safest of products, British beef? To that end, will he also do everything he can to speed up the implementation of the 30-month cull and to increase the flow of information from his Department to the beef industry?

Mr. Hogg: It is probably true that the British beef industry is now the most heavily scrutinised and regulated in Europe, and we can say with absolute confidence that there is no beef industry in Europe with higher standards. As for speeding up the cull and improving the flow of information, again my hon. Friend is right. I am glad to say that the process of slaughtering the cull cows is speeding up, and I hope that about 25,000 will be slaughtered next week. We also need to ensure that the farming community is kept fully aware of all relevant information, and we shall seek to do so.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister not aware that consumer confidence in British beef was destroyed in America, Australia and Europe when the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture, ran into the Chamber to make statements that caused, or precipitated, the crisis in the first place? Then they said that they would do nothing about it. They did not even tell the House what they intended to do until the following Monday. Let us establish the truth: the crisis was brought about by the Government, and they have spent every moment since then blaming everybody else.

Mr. Hogg: Let us analyse that question, if we may, and see what it amounts to: an assertion that the Government should have swept under the carpet and concealed the conclusions and recommendations of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. That is a disgraceful suggestion.

Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the best places to acquire safe British food from British farm animals is Market Harborough cattle market? Will he confirm that E. A. Lane and Sons of Leicester, which is on the list attached to the letter dated 2 May from the Minister of State, is the company that runs Market Harborough cattle market, which is open for business and doing well?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend can be reassured on that point. Another place in which to find very good British beef is the House of Commons Dining Room.

Mrs. Golding: Did the Minister discuss with the consumer representatives the reasons why they are not represented on SEAC, as they are on other Government scientific committees such as the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy? What would his explanation have been of the reasons why consumers are excluded from SEAC, the Government scientific committee discussing BSE? Does he not think that, if


there had been consumer representatives there, they would have had a better understanding and the public would have been better informed?

Mr. Hogg: I discussed that very question with the Consumers Association, and I told it that SEAC is a specialist committee set up to give the Government specialist advice. It does not seem to me that appointing representatives of groups that do not possess the relevant expertise would assist in the formulation of the specialist advice. If we were to adopt the principle that the hon. Lady commends to me, we should have to follow it further and put representatives of other interest groups on SEAC—producers, renderers, hauliers, retailers and so forth. That would so dilute the nature of SEAC that it would not be able to serve the purposes for which it was established.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on milk quotas. [27461]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): The Commission is planning to present the Council with options for reforming the dairy regime early next year. Meanwhile, we continue to press for an increase in milk quotas and a reduction in support prices.

Mr. Winterton: What plans do the Government have to consult the dairy farming and processing industry with a view to submitting to the European Commission in the very near future proposals relating to future dairy support, particularly relating to milk quotas? That must be done in the next few years. It is vital that we increase quotas for our dairy farmers and make those quotas transferable and more flexible, because this country has the best climate and grass for milk production.

Mr. Baldry: It is a great sadness that this country is not self-sufficient in milk products; that is because of the agricultural policies pursued by the last Labour Government. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have an excellent dairy farming industry and we need to ensure that any reforms of the EC dairy regime play to our strengths and acknowledge the competitiveness of the UK dairy industry. That is why we are pressing for increases in quotas combined with cuts in support prices. That will be good news for UK farmers and for UK consumers.

Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister confident that the impact of the current BSE cull on the dairy industry will not jeopardise the ability of dairy farmers to produce up to the amount of the quota?

Mr. Baldry: We estimate that the of the 30-month cull will reduce milk production by about 1.5 per cent., which can easily be made up by dairy farmers and is roughly equivalent to the super-levy amount this year. There will be no impact on milk production as a consequence of the 30-month scheme.

Mr. John Greenway: Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is it not the case that British milk production is hampered by the quota arrangements? We simply cannot go on producing only 80 to 85 per cent. of our milk requirements. Is not a consequence of that that there is a guarantee that we must import year on year? Is it not time that we had a quota that matched our consumption?

Mr. Baldry: I do not think that anyone disagrees with my hon. Friend. I have explained that the reasons why we are not self-sufficient in milk can be laid firmly at the door of the last Labour Government. We want a reform of the EC dairy regime, an increase in quotas and a cut in support prices, but what we really want is the competitive advantage of the UK dairy industry played to the full. We are determined to achieve that.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further assessment has been made by his Department of the research by Dr. Harash Narang into live tests for BSE; and if he will make a statement. [27462]

Mrs. Browning: MAFF has recently responded positively to a request to collaborate in an assessment of the effectiveness of Dr. Narang's test. The experimental procedure to be used is currently being discussed.

Mr. Barnes: Are not live tests the answer? If they work, we would be able to incinerate the cattle with the disease. The fact that Dr. Harash Narang's work is now being looked at seriously by MAFF is welcome, but why was it blocked for so long? Why was he refused a grant in 1990? Dr. Narang first discovered the filament linked with the brain disease in 1972.

Mrs. Browning: The SEAC has invited Dr. Narang to make available to it his information on CJD, as has MAFF on BSE. He has always declined to make it available. He has also declined to publish his work in a recognised scientific journal. The hon. Gentleman is right; a live test would be very welcome. That is why the Government are co-operating. We are talking to Dr. Narang in the hope that one will be developed quickly.

Mr. Morley: Given the importance of a live test because of its implications for cattle slaughter, we are pleased that the Minister is taking the matter seriously. Will she comment on reports that Dr. Narang is having difficulty getting brain samples from infected cattle to continue development?

Mrs. Browning: The substance that Dr. Narang is asking for is bovine urine. We shall be as co-operative as we can on that.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to renegotiate the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement. [27463]

Mr. Baldry: I am taking forward a number of sensible initiatives to reform the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Steen: While we realise that my hon. Friend the Minister will do his best to win back the 20 per cent. quota that Spanish flags of convenience have stolen from British fishermen, is he aware that it is not Europe, but his officials, who have closed down an oyster plant in my constituency by gold-plating a European directive about clean water which has been so vociferously and actively pursued that even my local environmental health officer says that MAFF officials are wrong? He has closed down an inshore fishery even though it has for eight years been run as a first-rate fishery.

Madam Speaker: Order. An Adjournment debate is the answer to that one.

Mr. Baldry: The business to which my hon. Friend refers has been closed because of clear advice from the fish diseases laboratory at Weymouth that the purification practice operated by the business posed an unacceptable risk to human health. If he wishes to examine the evidence, I shall be glad to take him through it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May. [27486]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's policies, especially on child benefit, the youth training programme and the lack of a minimum wage, give the youth of this country tremendous opportunities? Does he also agree that, given that it wants to abolish child benefit and the youth training programme and impose a minimum wage, Labour has nothing to offer Britain's youth?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition have illustrated the case by their actions over the past few days. Today, they are going to try to retain child benefit for people coming from abroad at precisely the same moment that the shadow Chancellor is trying to abolish it for every family in this country whose child is taking A-levels. Frankly, I find that inexplicable.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall saying that, if the provisional allegations of the district auditor in respect of Westminster city council were confirmed, he would condemn those involved absolutely and unreservedly? The provisional allegations have been confirmed. Will he now condemn those involved unreservedly, as he promised that he would?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is misquoting. Let me make three points. First, both I and my party are in favour of the highest possible standards in public life. I condemn wrongdoing in any quarter.
Secondly—I am surprised that I have to say this to a distinguished lawyer—I believe in justice. As the auditor's report makes clear, the individuals have the right to appeal against the auditor's decision. I understand that they vehemently contest the auditor's report and that they have said that they will take the matter to court. In the face of such a clear-cut protestation of innocence, I think that any sensible and cautious person would be wise to await the outcome before making a judgment.
Thirdly, with the trail of waste, inefficiency and corruption in Labour councils up and down the country, the right hon. Gentleman is in no position to lecture anyone.

Mr. Blair: He said that, if the provisional allegations were confirmed, he would condemn those involved, and now he fails to do so. May I point out that of course they have the right of appeal—for heaven's sake, the Home Secretary is in the appeal courts most days of the week. I also remind the Prime Minister that some of us remember how he stood at the Dispatch Box and condemned the Monklands council of my late right hon. and learned Friend, and predecessor, John Smith in the middle of an inquiry when the allegations were then dispatched.
Does the Prime Minister not recall that the allegations are about putting homeless people into asbestos-ridden flats and appalling bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will he not take this opportunity to fulfil his promise as Prime Minister and now condemn what any reasonable person would condemn?

The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to condemn cases of proven malpractice and those who have been found guilty in a court of law. I saw no condemnation from the right hon. Gentleman after Lambeth was found guilty of malpractice. I saw no condemnation when it was thought that between 400 and 500 officers in Lambeth were receiving fraudulent payments. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that the matter must go to the courts. The people challenged in this matter have declared their innocence in very clear-cut terms. I am surprised, in the face of that, that a lawyer would decide before the matter has gone to court to make a judgment about the outcome of that matter. I think that that is a contemptible way for the right hon. Gentleman to behave.

Mr. Blair: I believe that what is contemptible is what we have just heard from the Prime Minister. As for saying that the allegations are not proven, they have been proven—that is precisely what the district auditor has proved under legislation set up by this Government. Is not the Prime Minister's real problem that this was not a maverick group of obscure local councillors, but the flagship Conservative council? They carried on their activities with the knowledge and approval of the Conservative party. If the Prime Minister fails now to condemn what has been described as disgraceful and improper conduct, will it not be crystal clear to the British people that there are no depths to which the Conservative party will not stoop to gain re-election to any office that it holds?

The Prime Minister: I suppose that it was only a matter of time before the Leader of the Opposition tried to widen the smears that his party has been making.


We have learnt that Labour Members take a smear, spread a smear and hope that it will stick. That is what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been doing for the past two or three years.
If the right hon. Gentleman is so pious, will he tell us whether he condemns his colleague, who sits on the Labour Benches, who is a surcharged councillor? Will he tell us why he appointed to his shadow Treasury team someone who encouraged people not to pay the council tax, against the law? Will he tell us whether he agrees with the comments of his deputy leader? He said:
In a local authority situation you obey the law or not obey the law. We"—
presumably that is the Labour party—
don't have any firm principles in the Party of how we might deal with the problem.
Against that background and the record of his party and his party's councils, I shall take no charges from him about a matter that must go to court and is not yet proven.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great majority of my constituents would wish to mark Europe day by suspending all our net contributions to the European Union—which cost the taxpayers of this country £4 billion last year—until such time as all threats to our historic position as an international trading nation have been withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the supremacy of British courts, but I must tell him that, if we decided to withhold payments to the European Union, that decision would be struck down in the British courts and not in the European Court of Justice. I must also tell him that, because the net under-payment in the European Union this year will be less than the net payment by this country, there is unlikely to be the draconian effect that some of my hon. Friends anticipate.
I believe that it is right for us to press, in the European Union, for this matter to be speedily resolved. That is what we intend to do, and that is what I intend to press day after day. I want a solution to the problem, not an institutionalising of the problem so that beef farmers suffer longer, or no solution is reached.

Mr. Risley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May. [27487]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Illsley: Given the Prime Minister's refusal to condemn certain Westminster councillors for their corrupt conduct, will he take this opportunity unreservedly to condemn those Conservative Members who have failed to register their parliamentary incomes of millions of pounds?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should be aware of what Madam Speaker said about this problem. She said that, if an hon. Member has a complaint about the registration of interests by any hon. Member, he should write to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and not raise it on the Floor of the House. That is not my view; it is the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the Leader of the Opposition stated that one of the Opposition's few policy decisions was that they would allow homosexuals into the armed services? If it is true that the Opposition are today allowing a free vote on that issue, does not that smack of very poor leadership and lack of direction?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition. We will discover the views of every hon. Member later today.

Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May. [27488]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pike: The Prime Minister will recall that, on 21 February 1991, he said:
We should be happy to have Dame Shirley's advice".—[Official Report, 21 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 432.]
In view of the condemnation of the six councillors named as guilty in the report that was published today, will he recognise that there was advice from the policy unit at No. 10 Downing street, and from the Department of the Environment, on the turning of a blind eye when Westminster council was committing those illegal and disgraceful acts? When will he condemn those who were guilty? When will heads roll—or will he bite the dust as Prime Minister and fall at the general election before this sordid affair is sorted out?

The Prime Minister: Everything the hon. Gentleman has said is nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but, as it happens, the quotation he has just given the House is entirely out of context, to make a dishonest point. If he had read the question, hon. Members would know that my reply related specifically to Westminster's success in holding down local taxation. That is in sharp contrast to the performance of Labour councillors. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now do me the courtesy of reading the quotation and placing an apology and a correction in Hansard.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May. [27489]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: On my right hon. Friend's visit to Scotland, will he take with him the message that establishing a Parliament in Scotland, but still allowing Scottish Members of Parliament to vote on English and Welsh matters, would be deeply resented by English and Welsh people and that allowing Scottish Members of Parliament that double set of rights would be gerrymandering on a very large scale?

The Prime Minister: It most certainly would. My hon. Friend highlights a fatal flaw in the Labour party's plans. Labour Members have no idea how they would answer the question first posed by the hon. Member for West Lothian,


now Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The position of Scottish Members in this House would be untenable. That is the view once set out clearly by the shadow Foreign Secretary.
The reality is that I cannot imagine that the Labour party has properly thought through or understood what it seeks to do in establishing a tax-raising assembly in Scotland, which would provide a staging post for the leader of the Scottish National party to try to take Scotland out of the Union. I oppose that, although it is not in my party's interest to do so, because it is against the interests of Scotland and against the interests of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members support it because they see it as being in their own party, partisan interest.

Mr. Radice: On Europe day, will the Prime Minister put the case for British membership of the European Union?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman cares to read the speech that I made to the Institute of Directors a week or so ago, he will see the case put clearly. I have made it clear from the Dispatch Box time and time again that it is in the interests of this country to be in the European Union, arguing for the sort of European Union that is good for this country. That is my position, it remains my position and it will remain my party's position. What is not my party's position is that, as a result of that, we agree, and slavishly follow, the views of each and every one of our European Union partners. It is not our view that we will "never be isolated" in Europe and will therefore follow the caravan wherever it might lead. If Europe goes in a direction that is not suitable for this country, we shall reject that direction and not follow Europe.

Westminster (District Auditor's Report)

Mr. Peter Brooke: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the district auditor's report on Westminster city council published today.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The appointed auditor for Westminster city council, Mr. John Magill, has today published his findings in relation to the objections to the accounts of Westminster city council, in the form of a "public interest report", made under section 15(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. He has at the same time published a "statement of reasons" on which his decisions are based.
This case is still subject to the due process of law. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for me to inform the House about the auditor's decisions, but not to comment on them. [Laughter.] In that, I am following the traditions of the House.
The auditor's decisions are as follows: he has issued a certificate in the sum of £31,677,064 to each of Mr. Graham England, Mr. Peter Hartley, Mr. Paul Hayler, Mr. Bill Phillips, Dame Shirley Porter and Councillor David Weeks, under section 20 of the 1982 Act. They are jointly and severally liable for that amount. He has decided not to uphold the objections in respect of Councillor Judith Warner, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and Mr. Robert Lewis.
The auditor has now issued his certificate. Those surcharged have 28 days from the date they receive the auditor's statement of reasons to appeal against his decision to the High Court. I understand that they intend to do so.
I have made it clear that I would condemn utterly any failure to meet the highest standards of propriety, whenever it is found and whoever is found guilty.
If the decisions in respect of Westminster are upheld by the courts, I shall not hesitate to condemn those responsible as in any similar case, but neither the Government nor the House nor I should prejudge the findings of the courts.

Mr. Brooke: While no subject is higher than the law, will my right hon. Friend confirm, first, that those accused are also subject to the protection of the law until due legal process has been concluded, especially under a somewhat hybrid procedure and when the number of people being investigated has risen as well as fallen during the course of the investigation?
Secondly, although I have never criticised the district auditor—contrary to what has been said by those on the Opposition Front Bench—as the case has now continued for eight years and is not yet concluded, does my right hon. Friend believe that, when it has been concluded, it would be sensible to revisit the procedure because of the strain that it imposes, not only on those investigated and their families but on the district auditor?

Mr. Gummer: I have to say to my right hon. Friend that one of the greatest difficulties in politics is to uphold the integrity of the law while making it clear that, when the law has made its final decision, we must abide by that decision, and that, in all circumstances, however close or distant we may be from those who are condemned, we must condemn them, too. However, that demands of us the reticence of not judging people who still have a case to put. I have not prejudged any case in which Labour councillors have been involved, nor will I until the courts have found. Then I shall join in any rumbustious argument that anyone wants to have.
As to my right hon. Friend's second point, I do not believe that it is right during such a process to comment on the nature of the process or to suggest that perhaps a different process would be better. I have no doubt that people will discuss that afterwards, but this is not the moment to make a decision.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the procedure being followed by the auditor in this case was laid down by an Act of Parliament passed by the present Government?
Why will he not condemn the Westminster Tory councillors who have been found guilty of using £32 million of public funds to help a Tory election campaign at the expense of homeless families? Why will he not acknowledge that the scandal was not caused by a few maverick councillors in Westminster, but involved the entire Tory party from top to bottom, including people at Tory central office and 10 Downing street?
Does he accept that Tory Members, including—sadly, as far as I am concerned—the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) were all involved to a greater or lesser extent?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the huge sum of £32 million wasted by those Tories exceeds the annual budgets of no fewer than 272 local councils in England, including places such as Basildon, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, the Wrekin and Plymouth? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that sum of money would have built 600 new homes for the homeless or 10 new schools, or would have paid for 1,200 much-needed teachers in the inner cities?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in the 1980s, he personally helped to rig the Government grant to help Westminster council to keep down its poll tax—or, as the Prime Minister just described it, local taxation? In view of this scandal, the scandal of homeless families being put by the same Westminster councillors into asbestos-ridden blocks, and the scandal of the Government continuing to rig the grants system in Westminster, will the right hon. Gentleman set up a public inquiry into this Tory Government's squalid relations with Tory Westminster over the last 10 years?
Will the Secretary of State take my word for it that, if this cowardly Tory Government will not set up that public inquiry, the incoming Labour Government will do so?

Mr. Gummer: The public will now see how the legal processes would be treated by the Labour party. The public will now understand that Labour will leave nothing unused for party political advantage. Having heard the shameful betrayal of the legal system by the Leader of the Opposition, I was not surprised to hear what was said by the right hon. Gentleman's sidekick and soon-to-be-sacked spokesman on the subject.
One reason that we were given parliamentary privilege was to defend the innocent and to speak up for people who could not otherwise make their case. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has used parliamentary privilege to smear a whole series of my right hon. and hon. Friends. He proved that by his use of the words
to a greater or lesser extent"—
to be able to say afterwards, when those people have been shown not to be guilty of that which the hon. Gentleman claims, that he meant that they were covered by the word "lesser".
The only honourable way to deal with an issue of this kind is to say that, if someone is found by the courts of law to be guilty, one condemns unreservedly and without question—whoever that person is, however close one is to them, and for whatever party they happen to stand. Until that time, every person in Her Majesty's domains has the right to put his case—whether he is rich or poor, elected or unelected.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend, in resisting commenting on the issue, aware that, if he had not resisted that temptation and condemned the councillors named in the district auditor's provisional report, he would have condemned people who have been exonerated by that report? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the councillors named in the report took legal advice, and followed it to the letter? Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that people in this country are entitled to be presumed innocent until judged to be guilty?

Mr. Gummer: I think that it is true that Labour Members who jump to condemn on the basis of the interim report must now explain to themselves how it was that they condemned a number of people who are not now under condemnation. It would be good for all of us to be reticent in the way that we approach this report—or the internal report in, for example, Islington, or reports from Hackney or any other boroughs or councils that are, in one way or another, under investigation.
There is no reason for any of us to jump to judgment. What we have to do is to allow the courts to decide and to be clear from the beginning that we will judge everybody equally without fear or favour. That is why I shall make no comment at all about whether people followed the legal advice. That would be to enter the areas that only the courts can, in the end, discuss and decide.
As to my hon. Friend's last point, I suggest simply that the way in which one judges people is whether they stand up for the rights of people they dislike, not whether they stand up for the rights of people they love.

Mr. David Rendel: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, whatever the legal position is in relation to the six who have been surcharged, the position of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West

(Mr. Legg) is unlikely to be subject to appeal, and the findings are likely to stand? Those findings, as I understand them, are that the hon. Gentleman knew that gerrymandering was going on and decided not to take any action to ensure that it stopped.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the hon. Gentleman was, in effect, condoning gerrymandering, and that that brings into question his membership of the House? Does the Secretary of State further accept that, if the hon. Member does not resign and the Prime Minister and he himself do not take any action in the matter, they are also condoning gerrymandering?

Mr. Gummer: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I hope that he is never in the position of having to accept the words of someone outside on which he cannot speak for himself. I have no intention of removing from people the right to make their cases and put their positions in whatever legal way they can. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not fall into his party's usual trap of condemning anybody whether the proof is there or not.

Mr. James Couchman: While I understand my right hon. Friend's reluctance to revisit the process by which this judgment has been made, does he agree that it is a matter for grave concern for one person to act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman, and to have the power to exact an unlimited fine in penalty? Will my right hon. Friend, when this case is finished, revisit this process and consider introducing a much fairer process, which would be in accordance with natural law?

Mr. Gummer: In the origination of this law, which was indeed passed by the House and proposed by the Government, it was clearly envisaged that those affected had the right of appeal to a court. That is what the law expected, and the very nature of the structure and the system must lead any fair-minded person to accept that people should be able to appeal to the courts, and that—until that appeal has been heard and the courts have judged—it is not proper, right or decent to condemn them. [Interruption.] The seated interventions of the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) show, as usual, an atavistic desire to condemn those with whom she disagrees and a refusal to uphold the principle that people are innocent until proved, in a court, guilty.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that, 24 years ago, a Labour council—as opposed to a Tory flagship council—refused as a matter of principle to put up council house rents in line with the Housing Finance Act 1972? The Clay Cross councillors were incessantly condemned for their actions, day in and day out, by Tory Members of Parliament and Ministers in the House.
The councillors appealed against surcharge and—contrary to the way in which the present matter has been handled, with help from the Government for the Westminster councillors—the Clay Cross councillors were put on a fast track. Within two years, the court procedures had been finished and the councillors were condemned and kicked out of government, not because they took any money or did any gerrymandering, but because they acted on principle.
The truth is that there are double standards. There is one set of standards for Labour councillors and another for Tory councillors. Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his statements about not coming to judgment? Labour councillors were attacked day in and day out. The right hon. Gentleman is defending Westminster councillors because the Government have connived with them throughout eight years, a period longer than the second world war. The Government are as guilty as the six over at Westminster.

Mr. Gummer: I would condemn anyone of any party, tendency or attitude who broke the law. I condemn the Clay Cross councillors, who were found in a court of law to be guilty. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who has excused those councillors throughout—he has said that, as they acted on principle, it did not matter if they broke the law, just as the deputy leader of the Labour party says that the Labour party has not made up its mind whether councils should or should not keep the law in such circumstances—I have made up my mind: all councils in all circumstances should obey the law. If they are found guilty, whatever their political views, they should earn the condemnation of the House, and specifically and particularly the condemnation of those who share their political views.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend note that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) has been exonerated by the inquiry, contrary to some of the disgraceful remarks of Opposition Members? Will he accept that there is something fundamentally unjust and immoral in requiring someone to pay enormous costs without means of redress when he has been exonerated by such a tribunal? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that he has been exonerated?

Mr. Gummer: It is to rush to judgment to say that our hon. Friend does not have recourse in the courts. That will be a matter for him to consider and decide upon. It behoves everyone to be extremely careful in using the privileges of Parliament to pursue party political attacks. There are many people who have been innocent and who have, on both sides of the House, been accused under the privileges of Parliament. They have not been able to answer.
That is why I say to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that I can think of a prominent Liberal who was, under the privileges of Parliament, attacked by Labour Members. In many ways, he was destroyed, because he had no way of responding to what others were able to do under parliamentary privilege. It ill behoves the Labour party, which I understood was created in part to defend those who could not defend themselves, to condemn before others have been found guilty.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The privileges of the House were used to condemn Clay Cross councillors, who had not reached a final position within the courts. They were attacked viciously within the House. The second lot of Clay Cross councillors, after the first lot was debarred, was surcharged severally for £2,000. For that £2,000, the councillors were then debarred from

office. They were kept out of office for five years before they could return. I am talking about school caretakers and other such people, not the sort of person who is involved in the Westminster case. It is not unreasonable that we should be interested—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must have a question. I have not heard one yet.

Mr. Barnes: Is it not therefore reasonable that constituents in Clay Cross, people who were hit in that way, should be looking with interest at what has occurred here? If it is said that they are after a pound of flesh, they are not; they are after £31 million-worth of flesh.

Mr. Gummer: The House will have noticed that the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest—although I hope that he did not—that we should have more concern for the rights of a school caretaker than of someone who happens to be better off. I happen to take the view that the business of equality means that everyone—everyone—is equal before the law, and that we should behave in that way.
I also say to the hon. Gentleman very simply this. I have been prepared to condemn wrongdoing by anyone in any circumstances. I merely remind the House that the Labour party is still claiming that the Clay Cross councillors, who were found guilty in a court, were in fact not guilty, but were acting under the pressure of principle. I hope that the country outside recognises that the Labour party believes that Tories who have not been found guilty must be condemned, but that socialists who have been found guilty must be excused.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend recall the practice of municipalisation whereby the Labour-controlled Greater London council used millions of pounds of ratepayers' money to purchase houses for Labour voters in marginal Tory wards?

Mr. Gummer: What I may or may not recall is not a matter for today. What is a matter for today is for the House to live up to its reputation of the one place above all others where people can expect to be upheld until they are found guilty.

Mr. John Gunnell: As a former member of the Audit Commission, appointed by the present Deputy Prime Minister, I was present when section 15 reports about Liverpool city council and Lambeth council were read. Those reports were acted on. The people paid the surcharge that was due.
Why should that not happen in this case, where a far greater sum is involved, where gerrymandering is involved, which the district auditor, a private sector auditor from Touche Ross, described as disgraceful, and when the district auditor has given an account of how various people on the council thwarted his investigation?
That is why the proceedings have taken so long: people destroyed the papers. Can we not condemn the fact that the people involved delayed the proceedings by destroying the evidence? Is that not a matter that we can condemn, without having to come to a judgment about the judgment that the district auditor has reached?

Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that, if the courts find that what the district auditor has said is true, those people will be condemned, and they will have to pay the money which is charged. But I say to the hon. Gentleman simply this. I have been in the position, as I am sure he has, of hearing one side of a case and thinking how clearly it points to the innocence or guilt of a particular party. It is only in the next day's newspaper that I read the alternative, and I say to myself, "That's interesting." A final decision can be made only by the court, and I have no doubt that the court will make that decision.
Again, I shall only take lessons from the Opposition when they say unreservedly that, in all circumstances, including the case of the Clay Cross councillors—including the case of a surcharged councillor who sits on their Benches today, including the case of an Opposition Treasury spokesman who asked people not to pay their poll tax, including the case of a deputy leader of the Labour party who said that the Labour party was ambivalent about whether councils should obey the law—they condemn breaking the law. When they do that, they will have some reason to speak.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Given that the district auditor has cleared my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) of any misconduct, will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning all Opposition Members who, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, have attacked my hon. Friend and damaged his reputation in the eyes of the public? Will my right hon. Friend urge those Opposition Members to apologise, and to make clear their support for my hon. Friend?

Mr. Gummer: It seems to me that it is for Labour Members to bear it in mind that, in rushing to judgment on the interim report, they have found themselves making a blanket condemnation which turns out to be, at the very least, variable. They should recognise that they need to be reticent today as well.
One of the properties of parliamentary privilege is that it is a privilege, and privileges need to be respected. I think that the public will recognise that Labour Members—including those who have spoken from a sedentary position—do not respect parliamentary privilege as a privilege, but use it as a mechanism for party political advantage.

Mr. John McWilliam: Does the Secretary of State accept from a former commissioner for local authority accounts in Scotland that, if Westminster had been in Scotland, the case would not have dragged on for so long, and there would have been no interim report? There would have been one report, and the Secretary of State would have had a duty to implement it.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that, during the Committee stage of the Bill that became the Local Government Finance Act 1982, the Government opposed amendments tabled by Opposition Members, including me, that would have made it clear that those investigating the matter—the district auditor and his staff—were responsible for producing a report to which the Secretary of State would have had a duty to reply? The Government, however, amended the Bill to provide for an appeal to the court. Would not someone in Scotland who did what is

alleged to have been done in Westminster have been surcharged long ago? The Government have weakened the legislation.

Mr. Gummer: I thought it better to be consistent in not discussing whether the process could be improved. I do not think that it would be proper to do that while the matter was being investigated, for obvious reasons.
I cannot claim to be an expert on the details of the Scottish procedures, but I think that most people would agree that, when we are dealing with a clear statement from someone who, in this context, has been able to act as judge and jury, it is not unreasonable for an appeal to take place. That appeal has been granted by the House, and I feel that the House owes it to itself—let alone anyone else—to respect the procedures it has created, and to allow those concerned to proceed to court—with the clear undertaking that, if they are found guilty, they will be condemned by all of us, irrespective of the party to which we belong.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Mr. Magill, whose report we are considering, is an accountant, not a lawyer, and that his proper duty was to examine the financial aspects of the case, rather than seeking to make inflammatory statements in judging those involved?
Will he please look into the issue of the inordinate length of the proceedings? That placed appalling pressure on officers and elected members, which led to the suicide of an elected member whose death has been shown to be unnecessary—in the sense that he left a suicide note saying that this matter was the cause of his suicide. Opposition Members are gloating, but we should remember the pressures that these people were under.

Mr. Gummer: The allegations against these individuals are extremely serious. If they are found guilty, they will be guilty of serious misdemeanours. These matters take time, and I am not one of those who immediately rushes to judgment, even on the terms and the time that has been taken by the auditor. It will be for the courts to decide on this matter. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that, in such circumstances, we all ought to pay a little heed to the fact that to attack those who are later found innocent is to undermine our standing with the public in general.

Mr. Clive Betts: May I take the Secretary of State back to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and ask him to reflect on the Government's knowledge and involvement in this matter? First, will he confirm that, throughout the time that Westminster council operated its homes sales policy, each year a housing investment programme statement containing details of that policy would have been submitted to the then Secretary of State and his officials for consideration and consultation? Therefore, the Government knew all about the policy.
Secondly, will he confirm that certain aspects of the designated sales policy would have needed—and, indeed, received—the civic approval of the Secretary of State at the time? Therefore is it not true that Ministers are also up to their ears in this sorry and sordid mess?

Mr. Gummer: I know of no circumstances that would cause a difference between the treatment of Westminster and that of any other council of any other political kind. I notice that the Labour party is busy trying to spread a smear as widely as it can on grounds that are self-evidently nonsense. The hon. Gentleman, with his experience in Sheffield and his dealings there, should be ashamed of himself.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. This matter must now be brought to a close and we must move to our next item of business.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 MAY—Opposition Day [12th allotted day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the Northern Ireland economy on a motion in the name of the Ulster Unionists. That will be followed by a debate on the Government's cattle disposal scheme, on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY 14 MAY—Opposition Day [13th allotted day]. There will be a debate on standards in education, on an Opposition motion. That will be followed by motions relating to the Education (Grants for Nursery Education) (England) Regulations and the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training: Nursery Education) (England) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 15 MAY—From 9.30 until 10.30 and from 1 o'clock until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House. That will be followed in the afternoon by a debate on the common agricultural policy and other agricultural issues on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. That debate will be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 16 May. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 17 MAY—Debate on education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 MAY—Remaining stages of the Reserve Forces Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 21 MAY—Second Reading of the Defamation Bill [Lords], followed by proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures: the Police Bill [Lords], the Industrial Tribunals Bill [Lords], and the Employment Rights Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 22 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House. That includes the three-hour pre-recess debate with which the House is now familiar.
In the afternoon, until 7 o'clock, debate on developments in the Civil Service. Motion on the Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
The House will rise for the spring Adjournment on Wednesday 22 May until Tuesday 4 June.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 15 May to consider European Community Documents as follows:
European Standing Committee A: There will be a debate on agricultural prices for 1996–97 and supplementary payment to sheep producers n Ireland.
European Standing Committee B: There will be a debate on fraud. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
The House may also wish to know that it is proposed that on Wednesday 22 May there will be a debate on transport pricing in European Standing Committee A.
Finally, the House may wish to be reminded that it will rise for the Spring Adjournment on Wednesday 22 May until Tuesday 4 June.

[Wednesday 15 May:

European Standing Committee A—European Community documents: 5215/96, Agricultural Price Proposals 1996–97; unnumbered, Supplementary payment to sheep producers of the island of Ireland. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-xiv (1995–96) and HC 5 I-xviii (1995–96).

European Standing Committee B—European Community Document: 4512/96, Detection of Fraud and Irregularities. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51 xv (1995–96) and HC 51-xviii (1995–96).

Debate on the common agricultural policy and other agricultural issues, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Relevant documents: Council Document 5215/96 ADD 1, Volume 1 of 29 February 1996; Council Document 5215/96 ADD 2, Volume ll of 7 March 1996; Council Document 5215/96 ADD 3, Volume 111 of 18 March 1996; Explanatory Memorandum 5215/96 ADD 1 & 2, Volumes 1 & 11 of 12 March 1996; Explanatory Memorandum 5215/96 ADD 3, Volume 111 of 12 March 1996 and the Commons Select Committee Report on Explanatory Memoranda 5215/96 ADD 1, 2 & 3 and Volumes 1, 11 & 111 of 27 March 1996 concerning agricultural prices for 1996/97 and Agriculture in the UK 1995.

Wednesday 22 May:

European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 5179/96, Transport Pricing. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-xiv (1995–96).]

Mrs. Taylor: The Leader of the House has confirmed that the debate on Wednesday and Thursday on the European Union's common agricultural policy will be on a motion for the Adjournment rather than a substantive motion that could be amended. He must know that there is widespread dissatisfaction, across the Chamber and outside, with the CAP's workings. Surely the turmoil in the Government's party should not be used as an excuse to dodge that issue. What is the justification for making the CAP debate a two-day debate? If the reason is the importance of the issues involved, surely that proves the need for an amendable motion on which the House can vote.
Will the Leader of the House shed any light on what happened in the Committee considering the Wildlife Bill yesterday, when the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister of State, Department of the Environment talked out a Bill supported by the Secretary of State for the Environment? Is there any co-ordination between Ministers in this Administration? Was that incompetence on an alarming scale or an act of premeditated vandalism? What does the Leader of the House intend to do to ensure that that Bill, which has all-party support, makes progress?
On a different issue, the Leader of the House will be aware that it is just over a year since we last discussed the future of Hong Kong. As barely 14 months remain before the handover, would it not be appropriate to have a debate in the near future to provide an opportunity for the House to examine recent developments in Hong Kong, and the Government's proposals for ensuring that the present elected members of the Legislative Council are able to continue in office after 30 June next year?
Finally, in view of the today's report from the district auditor following his eight-year investigation into Westminster city council, which has highlighted the biggest ever scandal in local government, I had intended to ask the Leader of the House whether we could have debate in Government time on what went wrong and on that report.
However, I must tell him and the whole House—I apologise for this unusual step—that, in view of the staggering and sanctimonious complacency of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the outrageous attitude of the Prime Minister at Question Time in trying to protect and to excuse his political friends, despite the report, the Opposition have now decided to postpone the education debate due on Tuesday. There will instead be a debate in Opposition time on the scandals of Westminster city council.

Mr. Newton: I rarely say this about the hon. Lady, but I thought that the tone and content of the last part of her remarks bordered on the disgraceful. I am astonished that she has joined her right hon. and hon. Friends in seeking to deny people the proper right to take their case to a court, which is what we understand will take place in this instance.
I note what she has said about the debate with somewhat less than complete surprise. It struck me that it was mad for the Labour party to have a debate on education, given the shambles that the shadow Chancellor and others are in about child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds. No doubt it is as good a reason for getting out of that debate as the hon. Lady has been able to think of.
Returning to my more naturally emollient style, I note the constructive and reasonable request for a debate on Hong Kong, which I shall certainly bear in mind.
On the Wildlife Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others, have constructively sought to ensure that the Bill is workable and consistent with our and the Nature Conservancy Council's efforts to build constructive relationships with landowners and land managers, and we shall continue to approach it in that spirit. It has not been talked out. It will continue in Committee, and I hope that that constructive process will go on.
The hon. Lady asked about the agriculture debate. I do not think that I can add much to what I said in my response to her last week and wrote in my letter to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, who, I am glad to say, has responded with a thoughtful and constructive letter saying that it would be helpful for the documents that have been referred for debate to be tagged on the Order Paper on the motion for the Adjournment of the House—a request to which I have responded in my statement today.
If the hon. Lady wants to know why we have decided to extend the debate to two days, I must tell her that it is a confirmation of what I said last week, when I indicated that there was wide-ranging interest in agricultural issues, going well beyond CAP price fixing. I have received a significant number of requests, especially from my hon. Friends, asking for a two-day debate, and I thought it right to respond.

Sir Norman Fowler: Can we have a debate on Government policy relating to the electricity industry, and can we be told why the Government have overruled a merger between Midlands Electricity and PowerGen, in spite of the recommendation to the contrary from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will the Government take the opportunity of setting out in the House their policy towards electricity and such mergers, so that everyone knows exactly where they stand?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is due to be in the House answering questions next Wednesday. I will ensure that he is aware of my right hon. Friend's point before he gets here.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I return to the debate on the common agricultural policy? I welcome the fact that we now have an extra day in which to discuss these important and wide-ranging subjects. However, it seems highly unsatisfactory that the Government have not acceded to the House's request—there are views about this on both sides of the House—that it would be much more comfortable to have an amendable motion, as we have always had in the past. The Leader of the House has not persuaded me that there are circumstances which mean that we should change the convention on this occasion.

Mr. Newton: The fact that I have not convinced the hon. Gentleman does not mean that I am wrong and he is right. In fact, I think that I am right and he is wrong. As well as the debate in the House, there is a full scrutiny debate in Standing Committee, with the opportunity to cross-question Ministers for an hour. That is a significant advantage of that process, and I think that many hon. Members agree with me.
With those two debates, we are providing nearly two and a half days for the debating of agricultural matters, instead of either half a day in Committee or a full day in the House. Any hon. Member can attend and speak in the Standing Committee debate. That is the sensible way to proceed.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most hon. Members will welcome the addition of another day for the agriculture debate? He clearly said that the debate could be wide-ranging; will he make it absolutely clear that, in view of the gravity of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy situation, and of the concern felt by all our farming communities, there will be no bar to extending the debate to domestic matters such as BSE and the progress that is being made?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that there is a widespread interest in such matters at this time. Precisely for that reason, the debate is listed as being

on the common agricultural policy and other agricultural issues".
It could not be wider-ranging than that.

Mr. Tony Banks: Not many people know this, but the 12-starred badge that I am wearing in my lapel for Europe day is not the flag of the European Union but the flag of the Council of Europe, which has somehow been expropriated by the EU. That notwithstanding, could we have a debate on how to deal with Europe day in future? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember when we used to celebrate Empire day in school, and get dressed up in various costumes? Why do we not now celebrate Europe day in schools—or, if we cannot do that, why not have a public holiday? Perhaps we could change the anthem to "Ode to Joy". I am sure that that would please many Members of Parliament.

Mr. Newton: I am beginning to think that, although he does not look it, the hon. Gentleman must be older than I am, because I do not have those memories. As for me, I have felt it most appropriate to wear today what I might call the flag of the British Red Cross Society, and I am proud to do so.

Mr. James Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that two days next week will be devoted to debating the common agricultural policy, and does he believe that two days will be long enough for Labour Members to put right all the damage they have done to the British beef industry in the past two months?

Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that that would take rather longer than two days, but I hope that we shall at least hear them acknowledge the damage done by the initial responses of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman).

Ms Glenda Jackson: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that the one voice lacking in the exchanges about the scandalous behaviour of Westminster council is that of the thousands of people whose lives the council's gerrymandering tactics have destroyed—not least a family in my constituency who were bribed out of their tenancy by Westminster council and put on an estate outside London. The council subsidised their rent there by more than £100 a week, but because of racial harassment the family had to leave the estate, the family broke up and Westminster refused to house them, so they are now in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Grave damage has been done to that family.
I cannot believe that the Leader of the House would really criticise the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for using one of the Opposition days to debate the issue. Indeed, does it not behove the Government to add an extra day to that debate, so that we can really examine in detail over two days the gross damage that that gerrymandering has wreaked on so many people's lives?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady would not expect me to add to what my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Prime Minister have said within the past hour or so, and I shall not attempt to do so; nor do I wish to subtract from what I said about the words of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs.Taylor).

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask for a debate next week on the serious anger of many of my constituents at the corrupt action of a Labour councillor who sought to insist in a letter to the chairman of housing that he put Labour voters into a ward in my constituency for the specific purpose of securing Labour's majority in that ward? Have we not heard a great deal of humbug from the Labour and Liberal parties today, and would it not be better if Labour Members examined what their own party is doing, which they have not condemned in Ealing?

Mr. Newton: I am somewhat inclined to agree that we have heard a great deal of humbug, and perhaps worse, but my hon. Friend may accept that, in the spirit of what I have said in the past few minutes, and of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said earlier, I would not want to make further specific comment on specific cases.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the whole of Thursday's business will be on agriculture, and that the debate will not last only until 7 o'clock? Will the debate therefore last for two whole days, and not a day and a half?

Mr. Newton: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: I see that the right hon. Gentleman nods. Is there not an anomaly in having about 12 hours of debate on agriculture without an amendable motion, as distinct from having just two and a half hours in Standing Committee, where an amendable motion could be moved? Could not that motion then be taken on the Floor forthwith? Can the right hon. Gentleman not combine the two? If not, he might be accused of not giving the House a good crack at the issue.

Mr. Newton: I hardly think that devoting two and a half days to the subject—two on the Floor and half a day in Standing Committee—can be described as not giving Members a fair crack of the whip.

Mr. Spearing: I was referring to an amendable motion.

Mr. Newton: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I repeat what I said last week. I believe that our procedures for Standing Committees—which we use for the overwhelming majority of scrutiny these days—are more effectively geared for the kind of scrutiny necessary for such a matter. Members can question the Minister for an hour, and the matter can then be debated for an hour and a half, with any Member able to take part. It is sensible to have both procedures on this occasion, and that is what I have provided for.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that agriculture policy is largely a matter for our masters in Brussels, and is to a much lesser extent a matter for this House. Is he aware that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends may vote on Thursday to pass judgment on our masters in Brussels, rather than on the Government's agriculture policies? In that case, it is possible that the House may vote not to adjourn. What would be the implications for the Government's business and policies of such a result?

Mr. Newton: Such a result would simply mean that the half-hour Adjournment debate would not take place.

Ms Janet Anderson: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 855 in the name of myself and my hon. Friends, which refers to the thousands of people whose lives are blighted every year by stalking?
[That this House notes that thousands of people's lives are blighted by stalking each year, and that there is currently no effective method for either the police or victim to combat this social menace; recognises there is massive public support for the introduction of a criminal offence of stalking; commends the Daily Mirror for its campaign calling for such an offence; considers that such an important issue of public safety should be above party politics; believes that the Stalking Bill merits the close scrutiny and consideration of a Standing Committee; and hopes it will receive an unopposed Second Reading on Friday 10th May.]
Does he agree that there is a demand for the introduction of a criminal offence of stalking? Will he assure me that the Government will not obstruct the Second Reading of my Stalking Bill tomorrow? Will he join me in congratulating the Daily Mirror on its excellent campaign in support of my Bill?

Mr. Newton: I, and indeed the Government, very much understand and sympathise with what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve with her Bill, and we will certainly consider its merits against that background. We are examining what new measures might be introduced to combat stalking.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the largest industries in my constituency are agriculture and associated activities? He will be aware that those industries are facing their biggest crisis since the war, and many employees do not know what their future will be. I warmly welcome the fact that we will have a two-day debate, which the subject justly deserves.
Irrespective of the present crisis, the reform of the CAP is vital to every person in this country. Will my right hon. Friend note that the official Opposition wanted to curtail debate on this important subject? During that debate, I hope that the Opposition will do their best to restore the reputation of British agriculture, and stress the fact that our beef is the safest in the world to eat.

Mr. Newton: I endorse the latter part of my hon. Friend's comments, and I am grateful for his support for the course that I have adopted.

Mr. George Foulkes: Those of us who represent large rural constituencies—and, I believe, Opposition Front Benchers—welcome the fact that we will have a two-day debate. The debate will give us an opportunity to get rid of the crazy notion that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) caused the BSE crisis—it was the dithering incompetence of the Government that caused it.
I have been here for 17 years last Friday, and I think that, on almost every occasion on which we have discussed agricultural prices, there has been a vote.


The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—and now myself—have told the Leader of the House that we should have a vote next week. Will he change his mind, as he is heavily outnumbered on the matter? Is he afraid to do so because, last December, the Government lost a vote on the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman may have been here for 17 years, but I have been here for 22, and in many matters, the ways in which the House scrutinises things have moved on to reflect new circumstances. Indeed, when he and I first came to the House, the European Standing Committees that do most of the detailed scrutiny did not exist.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could we have a debate next week on far left infiltration of local institutions, so that we could highlight the fact that a Labour councillor in my constituency has resigned from the Labour party on grounds of extreme left-wing activity? A Labour councillor in West Suffolk has done likewise, and joined the Conservative party. Both councillors joined the Labour party believing all the moderate twaddle of new Labour, only to discover the reality: that Labour is still very left-wing in the constituencies—[Interruption.]—and, as we know, in the House.

Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend may have noticed, he has put new heart into Labour Members below the Gangway.

Miss Kate Hoey: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week in which the Minister responsible for sport could give his views on the chaotic situation at the Football Association in respect of ticket distribution for the Euro 96 championships? In view of the short time before Euro 96 and the increasing dissatisfaction of football supporters throughout England, will he ensure that we debate this important topic, so that we can be sure that England's name will be strengthened—and not weakened by chaos at the FA?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage will be one of the Heritage Ministers who will answer questions on Monday 20 May, and I will warn him of possible questions. I understand that the Football Association is making every effort to ensure that safety and security at Euro 96 are not compromised by tickets falling into the wrong hands, and the Government are giving it every support.

Dr. Robert Spink: Could my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate to ensure that the fishing industry, especially the controls on it and sea fish conservation, is properly regulated? We must ensure that the small inshore fleet and the traditional boats are properly and appropriately controlled when compared with the deep-sea boats of producer organisations and rule beaters that seem to do so well. As an Essex Member, he knows that the small inshore fleet is one of the features of the Essex fishing industry.

Mr. Newton: Indeed. Although I have a landlocked constituency, I was born and brought up in the Essex port of Harwich, so I am well aware of what my hon. Friend said. I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the issues raised by last night's "Dispatches" programme on the running of Motability? Can I have an assurance that the whole House—or at the very least, the Public Accounts Committee—will have an opportunity to debate those issues, and especially these four very serious allegations: first, the take-over of a public charity by a private for-profit, consortium of high street banks; secondly, the siphoning off of more than £100 million that belonged to disabled people, to boost the private consortium's profits; thirdly, the extent to which the charity exists behind a cloak of secrecy that the Government have consistently refused to question and bring before the House; and fourthly, the links between direct benefactors and donors to the Conservative party and the running of the Motability Finance Ltd. scheme? That must be addressed under the scrutiny of the House as a whole.

Mr. Newton: I did not see the "Dispatches" programme, but obviously I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments, as a former Minister for disabled people and as one who has supported the Motability arrangements over the years. The hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not feel able to comment on what he has said, but I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the national health service, so that I may welcome the further reduction in long-term waiting lists which were published today? Is he aware that the number of people awaiting surgery for more than 12 months has been reduced from more than 200,000 six years ago to only 4,400? Will he also confirm that there has been a 25 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated since the reforms were introduced, and that GP fundholders have revolutionised general practice?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly look as sympathetically as I can upon my hon. Friend's request, bearing in mind the pressures on the House's time. I welcome the opportunity that he has in any case had to draw attention to those very welcome and encouraging figures.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate about road safety, so that we may congratulate the Government on their courage in introducing probably the most effective advertisements on road safety ever to be used? They comprise home videos depicting children who have been the victims of fatal road accidents and are accompanied by a very moving, simple message from the works of Auden. As those advertisements are likely to get through to those who have caused road accidents when other advertisements have not, is it not right that we should congratulate the Government and all those responsible on drawing attention to the dreadful road toll of 10 fatal accidents every day of the year?

Mr. Newton: For once, I am left almost speechless, as I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman's asking a helpful question ever before. I shall simply take his comments in the spirit in which they are offered, and thank him most warmly.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) offered a sensible suggestion as to how we could vote on substantive matters next Thursday. The matters will be discussed in European Standing Committee A on Wednesday, when a motion will be put in front of us, presumably with an Opposition amendment. When the matters are decided, they could be brought before the House—certainly the Government motion must be brought back to the House—and voted upon immediately. We could vote on the motion in the House after 10 o'clock on Thursday, and then on the amendment if necessary.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Scrutiny Committee, and I have referred briefly to the constructive and thoughtful letter that I received from its Chairman. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion does not strike me immediately as particularly attractive, but I have no doubt that it was intended in a constructive spirit.

Points of Order

Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the past few days, hon. Members will have seen reports in the press that a journalist who works in the precincts of Westminster has been banned for 20 working days. Can you give us any useful background information regarding that matter?

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the whole House agrees that the press are an important element in the preservation of democratic freedoms, that their presence in the Palace of Westminster is welcome, and that they have the right to report our proceedings and to comment on political developments as they choose. Members of the Lobby are granted privileged access to Parliament so that they may exercise that right most effectively. But privilege is accompanied by responsibility. That responsibility includes a duty to take the advice of the security authorities of the House in relevant cases.
On 28 April, The People printed an article by its political editor about a current security threat. The article contained information which, unusually, he had been asked specifically by the security authorities not to publish. This is not the first time that the political editor of The People has published material that increases the security risk to Members and to their staff. He was previously given a warning about his activities here.
I have given very careful consideration to this entire matter. My conclusion is that the political editor's Lobby pass should be suspended for a period of 20 sitting days.

Sir David Steel: As I was the hon. Member involved in that story, if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) or anyone else is concerned about it, I shall be happy to provide further information in private.

Madam Speaker: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Arising out of the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time and in answer to the private notice question about Westminster, can you provide guidance on what hon. Members can do when it is clear—at least to me, and I am sure to many other hon. Members—that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, either intentionally or unintentionally, misled the House about the law in relation to the district auditor's findings?
The report is available to hon. Members and makes it clear that the auditor announced his findings today, which were not provisional—they were decisions. He made three decisions that there had been unlawful behaviour, and he came to the conclusion that six people were guilty—his words—of wilful misconduct.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State either misled the House, were economical with the truth or were ill-informed, and clearly were advised in an extraordinary manner. There must be a way to get Government officials to state accurately the law when the law is absolutely clear.

Madam Speaker: There may well be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who wish to pursue that line of argument in the debate that is planned for next week. That debate will no doubt provide an opportunity for all those matters to be examined.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

COAL INDUSTRY

That the draft Redundant Mineworkers (Payments Schemes) (Amendment and Consolidation) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 16th April, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1992 (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th April, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Question agreed to.

DEREGULATION

Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

MOTOR VEHICLES TESTS

That the draft Deregulation (Motor Vehicles Tests) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.

PARKING EQUIPMENT

That the draft Deregulation (Parking Equipment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.—[Mr.
Ottaway.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

NATURAL MINERAL WATERS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 12712/95, relating to natural mineral waters, and supports the Government's opposition to those parts of this proposal which impose unnecessary new requirements on producers of 'spring waters'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Question agreed to.

ARMED FORCES BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants towards expenditure in connection with the repair or maintenance of—

(a) the land and buildings on the site known as the Royal Naval College; or
(b) any object of historical interest situated on that land or in those buildings.—[Mr. Soames.]

Orders of the Day — Armed Forces Bill

As amended in the Select Committee, considered in Committee.

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Ordered,
That the recommitted Bill be considered in the following Order, namely, Clauses 1 to 4; New Clause 5; New Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 7; Schedule 1; Clause 8; Schedule 2; Clause 9; New Clause 3; Clause 10; Schedule 3; Clauses 11 to 13; Schedule 4; Clauses 14 to 27; New Clause 4; Clauses 28 to 31; Schedules 5 and 6; Clause 32; remaining New Clauses, other than New Clause 1; remaining New Schedules; New Clause 1.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

ENLISTMENT OR ENTRY FOR LOCAL SERVICE

Mr. Bruce George: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
`Provided that no regulations shall be made under paragraphs (j) and (k) above until a full report on the consultative process and pilot studies relating to the Ministry of Defence police has been made to the House.'.
I move this amendment with some reluctance because I was hoping that the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill would agree with my general attitude on the future of the Ministry of Defence police, which the clause addresses. If implemented, the clause would cause considerable damage to that fine organisation. Unfortunately, the Committee—with the casting vote of an excellent Chairman, who had this one lapse—did not agree. Because the voting was five to five, and the Chairman's vote consigned the amendment not to the clause but to the relevant part of the report, I thought that I should give the House an opportunity to consider the two views on the matter—which are not and should not be party political—and to discuss clause 2 and what it entails, particularly for the MOD police.
The MOD police is a non-Home Department police force that has served with great distinction for many years. My intention is not to try to wreck the concept, but merely to give the House an opportunity to consider in more detail what the MOD has in mind for the future of the MOD police. As we all know, the clause is intended to set up a new organisation, which will clearly have a detrimental effect on existing organisations. I repeat that my amendment is intended not to wreck anything but to give the House an opportunity to debate what the MOD is still in the process of doing—undertaking a series of consultations on the future of defence organisations and defence concepts. If my amendment secures sufficient support, I hope that the MOD will pause and give some thought to those matters.
No monopoly on wisdom is held by any individual or political party anywhere in relation to security policy. In relation to defence, which is the responsibility of the MOD, clearly the right decisions have to be made. Unfortunately, over the years other members of the Select Committee on Defence and myself have reached the conclusion that the MOD does not always get things right on policing and security.
The Defence Committee was largely responsible for stopping the privatisation of security at the royal ordnance factories when they were taken out of Government control in the early 1980s. Later, that Committee played an enormous part in ensuring that, when British Aerospace took over the royal ordnance factories, it took with it the MOD police. The Committee produced a very critical report on the MOD Deal barracks bombing, and it is currently in the midst of another evaluation of a substantial change being considered by the MOD.
The Defence Committee is still examining the report produced by the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, of which I was a member. Unfortunately, the MOD police and security have been subject to almost constant examination. I recall the Broadbent report in 1984, the "Guarding of Defence Installations" report in 1989, the Blelloch inquiries and the Rucker report—some of which was made public. There have been investigations on several occasions by the inspectorate of constabulary, and internal inquiries. I fear that the MOD is getting it wrong again, and I want to give it time more seriously to consider what could be a precipitate decision.
If the MOD police were reduced to 2,500 in number—an almost inevitable consequence of the process of change that is being undertaken by the MOD, which will certainly be accelerated should clause 2 be passed—I fear that it would be extremely traumatic. If that happened, morale would sink very low and many of the best MOD police officers would leave, taking advantage of the compulsory redundancy terms on offer. For some years, the quality of the MOD police is likely to be impaired, but it would eventually recover.

Sir Jim Lester: In terms of the morale of the MOD police, I know that the hon. Gentleman knows that Chilwell and Chetwynd barracks are carved into my heart. I find that it will be the pilot scheme for this change. It will happen by April 1997—less than a year. There is considerable concern among the MOD police on the site in my constituency and among the local population, who feel that soldiers parading the fences around the depot would not have the same force as policemen, who have the power to intervene with all sorts of people in cases of burglary, car theft or whatever. So I am listening carefully to what my colleague is saying. I should say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it will be difficult for me to vote against the amendment.

Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His comments reinforce the point that I have sought to make over the years, that security should never be seen as a party political issue. The fact that members of the Defence Committee agree with much of what I say suggests that the Government should proceed with considerable caution.
My amendment of the text of the Select Committee report was intended to say, "Look, the MOD is making a series of inquiries into the future of policing and security. Please do not take any major decisions until that inquiry has been completed, evaluated and passed on to the House and its Defence Committee for evaluation." Surely there is nothing too dramatic about that. Nothing should be done until the Defence Committee has completed its overall examination based on the evidence that has been given to us and the forthcoming visit by the Minister, to which we are all looking forward, and reported. Nothing


should be done until the pilot studies to which the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) referred have been evaluated—I suggest that they should be evaluated independently as well as by the MOD. Only when all those legitimate conditions have been fulfilled should the Ministry of Defence proceed to make the changes that it appears hellbent on making.
It is my considered judgment that the MOD already has a mix of policing and security forces, from which it can draw to meet any future requirements, without recourse to the establishment of yet another organisation. There is surely a super-abundance of security and policing organisations. As yet, no justification has been given for creating one more.
Military home service engagement is a spurious concept that has not been properly explained. Nor has it secured the support of the House of Commons. It is in my view a further attempt to get at the MOD police because it is perceived that costs are too high. I say that security must not be tampered with and that the ultimate criterion by which we evaluate good policing and security is its success in catching adversaries, criminals and fraudsters and deterring potential ones. One should not be profligate, but surely one should not drive down costs to such a level that the organisation's future is in jeopardy.
I presume that, if the scheme goes ahead, soldiers recruited will be given redundancy payments and then re-employed. That is a distinct possibility. They will serve according to different conditions of service from those under which they serve in the armed forces.
We are several thousand soldiers short at present. The Navy and the Air Force want nothing to do with the scheme. It is hard to keep soldiers in the Army and to attract more soldiers to join the armed forces. Soldiers are now given a bounty if they can recruit a mate. If we cannot keep soldiers in the Army at existing pay rates, how are we to entice them in with lower pay, no overtime, no benefits and lower status? They will not have access to free housing or a housing allowance. I wonder how these men and, I presume, women are to be recruited. They will be expected to serve Queen and country, yet this bizarre little organisation is being set up, which requires men and women to serve only in a limited area.
All of us who watch the Napoleonic wars being fought out weekly on the television are familiar with the old redcoat song, "Over the hills and far away." If the clause is accepted tonight, the song will need a slight amendment. It will go:
Queen Anne commands and we'll obey
Over the hills and as far as Wolverhampton.
People recruited in the west midlands will be required to serve Queen or King and country only within the travel-to-work area. It seems to me that it will be rather difficult to motivate people in those circumstances. Whatever the Minister says, it will be a second-class, inferior Army. That will make it even more difficult to recruit.
The MOD tested opinion among a few hundred soldiers and asked whether they would like to serve in some future guarding force. Twenty-five per cent. said that they would be interested, but they were not told what the wages would be, that they would not be allowed to work overtime or that they would not receive a housing allowance. So that little survey was spurious.
The Ministry of Defence police are being attacked and attacked fundamentally. Will the Minister tell us what will be the administration costs of the new guarding force? Will he tell us what witnesses were not able to tell either the Defence Committee or the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill how much it is all going to cost? The Defence Committee was told that it would cost some £42,000 to make a MOD policeman redundant. That figure went up a few months later to £85,000.
Then the Government said that it would take between seven and 11 years to reach break-even point. In other words, all this disruption to the MOD police and the guarding and policing of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and their families will not even pay off financially for between seven and 11 years. If my experience of MOD statistics is anything to go by, it will be even longer before there will be any achievement of profit, if that is the criterion.
It is estimated that the number of MOD police, which was 5,000 a few years ago, will be driven down to perhaps between 2,600 and 3,000—a cut of between 40 and 50 per cent. That will surely have an adverse effect on morale. The MOD police perform their tasks well. Will a force the size of which has been driven down by between 40 and 50 per cent. realise its functions of guarding, exercising constabulary powers, fulfilling its role in transition to war, fraud detection—of increasing importance—dealing with emergencies and assisting Home Office forces?
The future of policing within the MOD is threatened by what the Government intend to do. The Government must prove to us that the cost saving will be worth all the disruption. We shall have to have more information about whether the Treasury will fund the cost of the change. I suspect that, in a couple of years, any financial assistance from the Treasury will be withdrawn and that all the costs will fall on the MOD.
Therefore, I urge both sides of the Committee to join me in asking the Ministry of Defence not to proceed so quickly, as there are critical decisions to be made. The Ministry of Defence has embarked on at least three consultative exercises. It should conclude them before consulting the Defence Committee, not so that we can exercise our veto, but to discuss security and policing.
Although pilot studies are under way, the Government should make no further reductions beyond those proposed and those already achieved through redundancies. Only if the proposed changes are successful, valid and necessary in the exceedingly dangerous world in which we live, and only if the Government can prove that to the organisation concerned, the House and the Defence Committee, should those substantial changes be made.
If I receive assurances that there will be no major further changes, I shall be delighted not to divide the Committee, but if I do not receive those assurances, I shall seek the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in forcing the amendment to a vote.

5 pm

Mr. Robert Key: It is now more than a decade since the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and I served on the Ministry of Defence Police Bill. We have followed the security interests of the Ministry of Defence police and all the other police and security forces in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force


since then. It is important that hon. Members are aware that there is support on both sides of the Committee for much of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The Ministry of Defence police must be the most reviewed police force ever. There is real anger among Ministry of Defence policemen, not just in my constituency, where I met the Ministry of Defence police from Land Command only 10 days ago, and had an extremely fruitful discussion. Part of the trouble was that they did not know what was happening, although it would affect their numbers, and their lives and careers and those of their families.
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I shall be unable to support him if he seeks to divide the Committee, for reasons that I explained to the Select Committee. In addition, I believe that there is merit in the proposal for local service engagement, which I would not wish to prevent. I am glad that it has been recommended that the Defence Committee should review the matter, so that we can press the Minister and his officials on future security arrangements.
We should bear it in mind, however, that the agencies now established in the Ministry of Defence pay for their own security. There is downward financial pressure on them, so they seek to achieve the best possible use of the most appropriate policing techniques. That might well involve more use of soldiers or service men and women as well as new security arrangements, in addition to the guard force.
I continue to be concerned by the interface with the Home Office police. In areas of military concentration such as my constituency—as well as in Colchester and other places—there are real issues to be addressed. It is assumed that if there is a reduction in the numbers of Ministry of Defence police, there will be substitution by the Home Office police to achieve the same level of policing. I do not believe that that will happen. However, constructive discussions are taking place about joint control rooms, for example, and there is best practice of county constabularies to be followed around the country, on such matters as joint patrolling. In Colchester, for example, there is an outstanding system whereby the Ministry of Defence police and the military police patrol with the county constabulary. That may be the way ahead.
I am much reassured by the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police and by the answer that I received to a recent parliamentary question, informing me that radio communications between the county constabularies and the Ministry of Defence police are much better than they were even a year or two ago.
Local service engagements are a good idea. Whatever is decided for the future role of the Ministry of Defence police, there will be a role for local service engagements, but I view with great concern the contraction of the Ministry of Defence police, especially as—except in Whitehall—it is not quite clear exactly what will happen. The concept of area policing teams for Ministry of Defence police should be developed much further, but this is not the place to do it. It is a matter for the Defence Committee.
I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record my misgivings about what is happening to the Ministry of Defence police and to pay tribute to their work. It is of a very high standard and it is unique in that they now have full constabulary powers. They play an important role in

the policing of our civilian communities and are often the first people to whom married quarters personnel turn when there is trouble on Army estates. My hon. Friend the Minister should be fully aware of the concern on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I cannot claim the length of commitment of the two hon. Members who have already spoken, but, as a member of the Defence Committee, I have had the opportunity to hear evidence on some of the matters with which the amendment is concerned and, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), I visited his constituency which contains the atomic weapons establishments at Burfield and Aldermaston. The Ministry of Defence police have a significant, important and considerable role in ensuring proper practice in and around those establishments.
If the clause were to become law, it would not be mandatory, but permissive. It would allow the Ministry of Defence—if it so chose—to introduce a system of local service engagements. The nature of the debate so far, and in particular the misgivings that were expressed by the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, seems to argue strongly against the introduction of such a service.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), in an intervention, identified the central issue. The Ministry of Defence police do not function merely as armed guards. They possess full police powers, so they can prevent crime and deal directly with criminals and all other categories of person. Those inducted under a system of local service engagements would have a limited capability. They would have legal powers over service personnel only and there is much evidence to suggest that civilians constitute the main threat to the security of defence property.
If the basis of the proposal is the desire to make savings, any savings that may be made by reducing the number of Ministry of Defence police must be set against the cost of making members of that force redundant, establishing a new organisation and—what is not always fully considered—the effect of the substantial sums, perhaps running into millions of pounds, that must be saved every year by virtue of their ability to prevent and detect crime, a capability that those on local service engagements could not possess.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) rightly drew attention to the rather curious conditions that may attach to service in such a force. Recruits are to be drawn from ex-service personnel. They will be offered considerably lower rates of pay than those available in the Army, their conditions of service will be much inferior to those currently enjoyed in the Army and there will be no long-term job security. They will have to observe service discipline, and their principal activity will be static armed guarding, which is notoriously unpopular in the armed services. It seems that the proposition in respect of local service engagements is hardly attractive, so there must be considerable doubt whether enough people of the right calibre could be recruited on those terms.
If the Ministry of Defence police are removed from an area, it will still require policing. That burden will inevitably fall on what are described as the Home Department police—the local force in any area—and it is one that, so far, they have not been required to bear.


I shall be interested to know what the reactions of chief constables throughout the land will be when they find themselves subject to an additional policing burden when there is continuing pressure from hon. Members in all parts of the House for the police to be more active and effective in preventing and detecting crime.
A concept similar to local service engagement has been presented on no fewer than three previous occasions, but it has been abandoned as unviable. The Government's proposals do not take sufficient account of the vital considerations of security, safety and crime prevention. If the hon. Member for Walsall, South feels compelled to force his amendment to a Division, he will certainly have my support.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am certainly not opposed to change. I have often supported revolutionary change, but I appeal to the Minister to acknowledge that the proposed amendment is sensible and reasonable. Its purpose is not to overturn Government policy, but to suggest that there should at some stage be a review of a pilot scheme. I have seen many changes that were well intentioned but which turned out to provide a poorer service at greater expense. The Government's proposal is not new, but has been tried on three previous occasions and, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, it was abandoned because it could not work.
In 1985—probably before most of the hon. Members present entered the House, but I was here—the royal ordnance factories were privatised. They were purchased by British Aerospace but, as a result of serious doubts about lack of security expressed by the Defence Committee, the MOD police were forced on Royal Ordnance as a condition of sale. The House insisted that privatisation be subject to the provision of MOD police.
We must bear in mind the dangers of establishing new organisations. I know that the Government are wholly opposed to quangos—I am sure we all are—but, these days, there seem to be more and more little offices and officials, and more people supervising something. Somebody will have to supervise military local service engagement, monitor its operation and how good it is, its conditions and whether the interests of the law-abiding public are properly represented. Has consideration been given to the cost?
The removal of a well-respected police force with a record of success often has a serious effect on an organisation's security. The Minister is not only cautious, but thorough and talented. I hope that he acknowledges there is always a danger of clever people—unlike those of us on the Back Benches—with great ideas being carried away with implementing them, without in every case anticipating how they will turn out in practice.
The amendment is saying, "This is a wonderful idea, and it will provide a better service at lower cost"—as Conservatives always want to do—"but let us check in case it is not the right idea." There is a case for caution, because the concept was tried before and did not work. The amendment seems to make sound, common sense. Although revolutionaries such as me and other Back Benchers always want big changes, there is always the risk that things that are working perfectly well will be upset.
I ought to declare a constituency interest in that Southend, East is the location of DTEO Shoeburyness. The P and EE, as we used to call it, is now run by another organisation that I do not entirely understand—although I met its chief executive the other day. He has a nice big office. He is a splendid man, and I am sure that he does a great job. He told me that there is no doubt in the local community that the MOD police have a superb reputation, command great respect, and have a great tradition of success.
The proposed revolutionary change of halving the number of MOD police from 5,000 to 2,500 should not proceed until we can see that it will work. I appeal to the Minister to accept the spirit of the amendment, if not the amendment. We are not asking him to abandon a brilliant idea. It may be brilliant, although some people, like me, do not think so. Let us try to establish whether it is a brilliant idea before going ahead with it. The Government, as we all know, have been wonderful. They have great ideas and have made many great changes. Let us not spoil our record of success by going ahead with a change that might not work as brilliantly as all the other measures that they have introduced.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Speaking as a reformist rather than as a revolutionary, I must at the outset declare a constituency interest. A goodly number of my constituents work across the Firth of Clyde at Calport and Faslane—some of them as police men and women. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) reasonably and sanely argued against the Ministry of Defence taking a precipitate decision about the terms and conditions of employment for those men and women. They are a fine body of decent, loyal, hard-working and highly skilled officers who deserve much better than that which the Bill proposes.
No change should be made before there is a genuine consultative process that involves those police officers or their representatives. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) spoke of the range of duties performed by MOD police, and he made the significant point that they often have to act against civilians. That is most clearly seen on the other side of the Clyde when there are demonstrations against nuclear submarines entering the river. As I have witnessed some of those demonstrations over the past 25 years, I can say with confidence that MOD police handle those often difficult situations in a mature and level-headed way.
I am not sure how many MOD police officers are employed at Calport and Faslane, but they must number 200 or 300. They, with their colleagues elsewhere in Scotland and south of the border, deserve fair-minded treatment. If they are to be presented with change, it can be legitimate only when it meets some of the understandable concerns and worries felt by those officers. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment and to ensure that any change is made only after genuine consultation with the representatives of the police officers in question.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I share the regard for the dedicated service given by Ministry of Defence police. I voted, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Bill,


against a comparable amendment, for two reasons—the Minister gave a categorical assurance that there would be a genuine pilot study of local service engagements, and there are two ways in which the MLSE concept can be scrutinised. One is by the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, which has effectively ceased to exist because we have reported; the other is through the Select Committee on Defence, of which the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and others are members. There are two Committees.
The question is not whether the pilot scheme should be subject to scrutiny, but how that scrutiny should be carried out. The right way to maintain scrutiny of the pilot study is through the Select Committee on Defence. My hon. Friend the Minister was good enough to brief the Select Committee when the concept of local service engagements was first put forward, and he is to appear before the Committee on 4 June. We will continue our study and scrutiny, and that is the right way to do it.

Dr. John Reid: Since everyone else has had a say, I am more or less obliged to say something. This is an important issue, but there are other important issues before us tonight, so I shall keep my comments brief. The Minister knows my views, which I have expressed. I am not convinced that we need another guard service or that we will be able to recruit the members of such a service as he suggests. I am thoroughly unconvinced that the figures for supposed costings have been prepared well, since we do not even know yet what the redundancy payments for the Ministry of Defence police would be.
The matter was discussed at length in Committee, and it has been voted on. It has been the subject of an investigation and it will continue to be investigated by the Defence Committee. The Minister has already given assurances. I hope that he will repeat his assurances tonight about the genuine nature of the pilot scheme and I hope that that will be sufficient to allow my hon. Friends not to push the amendment to a Division, which would unnecessarily divide us across parties.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), and I am happy to repeat to the House the same assurances that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) set out.
We have had a good debate. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) feels very strongly about such matters, and I have a great deal of respect for him. His knowledge of defence matters is positively daunting, and I look forward to what I understand will be a cheerful and, I hope, brief exchange with him in the Defence Committee. I am sure that the business will be dealt with and dispatched with the vigour and speed that is well known. I should be in and out in about 15 minutes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has, throughout, expressed great concern and interest in the Ministry of Defence police, and not just because the Ministry of Defence police do an admirable job in his constituency. My hon. Friend is aware that many of the defence agencies, which operate extremely effectively in his constituency, often make representations to him about the importance of trying to bear down on the costs of guarding, which are very high.
I am aware of the visit to Newbury by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North—East (Mr. Campbell) and of his views, because he was good enough to discuss them with me earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) paid a warm tribute to the brilliance of the Government and I share that view wholeheartedly. My hon. Friend has always regarded me as a paralysed wet when it comes to his views on revolutions. The changes are not a revolution, but a nice adjustment. I noted carefully what my hon. Friend said and I shall deal with the important points that he raised.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) also has an extensive MOD police presence in his constituency. He and I discussed this matter when he came to see me the other day. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport was an able and admirable Chairman of the Select Committee and I am sure that we all wish to pay tribute to his work. I am happy to extend to him again the reassurances that I gave the Select Committee.
Clause 2 will give the armed forces the flexibility to recruit personnel for military service in a specified locality rather than worldwide. As the hon. Member for Walsall, South knows, that is not an attempt to get at the MOD police—but nothing will ever persuade him that it is not, because he has it fixed in his mind firmly that we are trying to get at them. I wish to join the hon. Gentleman and all those hon. Members who paid tribute to the work of the MOD police. They do a splendid job and are a fine force that is greatly respected.
There are some tasks that might be unattractive to, or inappropriate for, full engagement regulars, but they might none the less best be carried out by uniformed service personnel rather than by civilians or police officers. The reasons for considering the use of local service personnel could vary according to the circumstances of the case. There are no plans or proposals for the general introduction of local service schemes other than for guarding. The Bill would give the option to introduce such schemes if the services saw a need for them before the next Armed Forces Bill in five years' time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said, the matter has been carefully discussed in the Committee, and we have been round this buoy on several occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury raised an important point about joint working. As he knows, I wholly endorse his views. I am determined to press forward on the matter, and I know that there is already a joint arrangement on Salisbury plain, which my hon. Friend has seen and which is extremely impressive and works well. I note his comments and I am well aware of his views.
On current assumptions, the size of the MOD police is expected to fall to between 2,500 and 3,000 by the early years of the next century. I want to make it plain to the House that it is my intention that they remain a substantial force able to provide a civil policing service, where that is required, throughout the whole Department. The chief constable and I are entirely confident that a force of 2,500 to 3,000, properly structured and resourced, will be able to do so. The force will lose some of the work that does not need to be done by police officers. In future, it will concentrate more on its constabulary role, as Sir John Blelloch recommended.
I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, South that the MOD police must be the most reviewed police force in the country. It has emerged from all the reviews with


great credit, and the suggestion that morale is low is not true. They have had a difficult time, as have other parts of the Ministry of Defence, during a period of great change. The Select Committee heard from the chief constable that morale is not as low as some hon. Members have suggested.

Sir Jim Lester: One of the pilot schemes is taking place in my constituency. I can assure my hon. Friend that morale is not very high. The MOD police have been visited by somebody who talked about redundancy and how quickly the pilot scheme could be brought in. With respect, I request my hon. Friend to be sensitive to the people affected by the pilot schemes—never mind the bigger schemes—before any final decision is made.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will never deal with a more sensitive Minister than me. He has my assurance that I shall be extremely sensitive.
One of the new developments to which I referred concerns the MOD police area policing teams. As some hon. Members will know, we have already set up three teams, and I have now decided that the concept should be extended to other areas in Great Britain where teams are needed. That will require some additional MOD police posts, which should reduce the need for voluntary early retirements or severances during the Military Provost Guard Service—MPGS—pilot scheme.
Another factor that should reduce the need for MOD police voluntary early retirements or severances is the position of the royal ordnance factories. We had proposed to withdraw them from three royal ordnance factories when some important security enhancements had been completed to the satisfaction of the licensing authorities. The chief constables concerned and the Health and Safety Executive told us that they had no objections. In the event of an armed response being required at one of those factories, the local police would have provided it. I have now decided, however, that, in view of the current terrorist threat, this is not the right time to implement the proposal. I have therefore deferred the measure for two years, and we will consider the situation again in the light of the terrorist threat at that time.
Hon. Members have said that they foresee difficulties with recruiting for the military local service engagements. It is the considered judgment of the Ministry of Defence and the Army that that will not be the case. The members of the Select Committee who have made visits to familiarise themselves with the situation will realise that there are many young men and women who wish to leave the services but to continue their close association with service life. We believe that we will indeed be able to attract people of sufficient calibre to such a scheme.
If the MPGS pilot scheme were successful, the main scheme would follow on after about two years. About 500 further MOD police officers, employed only on guarding duties, would be replaced by military local service engagement soldiers. The earliest date for the beginning of the main scheme would be 1 April 1999. I expect to be ready to consult about the main scheme locations during the autumn. It will not be possible to do so earlier because of on-site complementary reviews that are still required at some sites that are under consideration. I have

heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) said about Chilwell. He is only too aware that he has discussed the matter with me on many occasions. He understands that I am entirely aware of the situation.
5.30 pm
Since the MPGS investment appraisals and affordability assessments were prepared last spring, a great deal of work has been done to develop the scheme. Much work has been done also on all the other proposals set out in all the various policing and guarding consultative documents. It is not surprising that some of the assumptions made last spring have needed some adjustment. I have therefore announced that the Ministry of Defence is preparing a new investment appraisal and affordability assessment to reflect the necessary changes. I have promised to make the results known to the Select Committee on Defence when I give evidence on 4 June. I am looking forward enormously to that occasion. I have ordered a new set of armour for it.
The new investment appraisal and affordability assessment will be set out also in a new consultative document, which will be issued shortly. That will be subject to further consultation. Although work on the new investment appraisal has not been completed, it is clear that it will confirm that the proposal offers the Ministry the prospect of significant resource-cost saving over the medium to long term without reduction in security standards. I am aware that the hon. Member for Walsall, South attaches the highest importance to that.
Concern has been expressed about the cost of redundancies. We are not expecting any compulsory redundancies. The planned reduction in size is enabling a number of officers, who wish to do so, to leave the force on voluntary early retirement or voluntary early severance terms. For reasons unconnected with the MPGS proposal, 331 officers left the force in that way last year. Until now, we have had to assume that the implementation of the MPGS pilot scheme next year will require consequential MPGS losses to be covered by a further scheme.
The amendment is defective. It might prevent any pilot scheme ever being implemented, which I am sure is not the intention. It might be interpreted as not allowing regulations permitting the introduction of MLSE to be made until a report has been made on the MPGS pilot scheme. In fact, the pilot scheme cannot be introduced until the MLSE regulations have been made.s
I note the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the Committee. I hope that the assurance that I gave in the Select Committee will be accepted by the Committee of the whole House. I note especially the points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, to whom I defer in many ways. He says, importantly, that there is no point in change for the sake of change. My hon. Friend feels that something that works well should not be changed.
I accept that the system works very well, but it is expensive. I know that my hon. Friend will agree that the Ministry of Defence, which has had to bear down throughout its budget in every department, must examine carefully where high costs, which might be reduced, are incurred.
I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. George: I assure the Minister that he need bring with him to the Select Committee on Defence not a suit of


armour, but another suit. No one except the Minister appears to be enthusiastic about the proposal in clause 2. Most hon. Members seem to be downright opposed to it. Those who have not have been less than enthusiastic. To retain the bipartisan approach of the House of Commons and of the Select Committee on Defence, which will be meeting the Minister shortly—it will be an occasion when we can explain and probe rather more fully than is possible in the Chamber—I shall take into account the partial concessions that have been offered.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 5

PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OFFENCES UNDER SERVICES ACTS

`. Schedule (procedure for dealing with offences under Services Acts) to this Act (amendment of provisions relating to the procedure for dealing with offences under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957) shall have effect.'—[Mr. Soames.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new schedule 1—Procedure for dealing with offences under Services Acts.
Government amendments Nos. 1, 2, 51, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 67, 68, 71, 72 and 78.
Paragraphs 64 and 65 of the new schedule do not appear in the amendment paper. The correct and complete version of the schedule has been reissued separately and is available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Soames: The amendments, and especially new clause 5 and new schedule 1, incorporate the greater part of the court martial reform package that I announced last year. Part of the package is already in the Bill. It appears in clauses 12 to 16, which deal with post-trial procedures. New schedule 1 sets out the detail of the new procedures at the pre-trial and trial stages. The purpose of the reforms is to reinforce the independence of the court martial, principally by reducing the apparent influence of the chain of command while preserving its necessary involvement. I hope that the reforms will find favour with the Committee.

Dr. Reid: There is much before us that has already been discussed fully in Committee. We are dealing with consequential amendments or amendments that have already been circulated to the Committee by courtesy of the Minister. There are amendments with which I and my colleagues agree. We shall attempt to minimise the time that we spend debating them.
We welcome every move that has been made to create a sense of independence between the command structure and the prosecution structure so as to entrench a system of appeals that is less liable to be found wanting. Therefore, in substance, we approve of all the amendments that have been proposed by the Minister. I

wish to say now, as I did in the Select Committee, that my colleagues and I still believe that there will be sufficient grounds for an endless stream of lawyers—well educated, well briefed and in most instances well heeled—to drive a reluctant Ministry of Defence continually to the European Court of Human Rights on the court martial system and on other issues. We welcome the proposals as far as they go, and will not intervene again in the consideration of new clause 5, new schedule 1 and the amendments. We take this decision for reasons of time, of which the Committee will be well aware.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to the Committee generally for its tolerance in accepting the manner in which the new clause, the new schedule and the amendments have been presented to it. Sight was given of what the various amendments would look like and the further shape of them was dependent on further drafting. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) for what he has said. I share his concern, of course, about the European Court—we all do—but we believe that the court martial system has served the United Kingdom extremely well, including our armed forces. We shall be prepared to take our chance, the same as everyone else.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule

PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OFFENCES UNDER SERVICES ACTS

PART I

SUMMARY DISPOSAL OF OFFENCES

Army Act 1955 (c. 18)

1. The Army Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.

2. For section 76 there shall be substituted the following sections—

Investigation of charges by commanding officer

76.—(1) An allegation that a person subject to military law ("the accused") has committed an offence against any provision of this Part of this Act shall be reported, in the form of a charge, to his commanding officer.

(2) A commanding officer shall investigate a charge reported to him under subsection (1) above.

(3) If, in the course of investigating a charge, the commanding officer considers it appropriate to do so, he may amend the charge or substitute another charge for it and treat the amended or substituted charge as if that charge had been reported to him under subsection (1) above.

(4) If, in the course of investigating a charge, it appears to the commanding officer that proceedings in respect of the matters to which the charge relates could be, and in the interests of the better administration of justice should be, taken against the accused otherwise than under this Act he may stay further proceedings with respect to the charge.

(5) After investigating a charge the commanding officer may, subject to subsection (6) below—

(a) dismiss the charge;
(b) refer the charge to higher authority; or
(c) deal summarily with the charge.

(6) The commanding officer may not deal summarily with a charge if—

(a) the accused is an officer or warrant officer; or


 (b) the charge is not capable of being dealt with summarily.

(7) This section has effect subject to any power of the commanding officer under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

Powers of higher authority

76A.—(1) Where a charge is referred to higher authority, the higher authority shall refer the case to the prosecuting authority unless he takes one of the steps mentioned in this section in relation to the charge.

(2) The higher authority may refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused with a direction to dismiss it or to stay all further proceedings in relation to it, and the commanding officer shall deal with the charge accordingly.

(3) If the charge is against a non-commissioned officer or soldier and is capable of being dealt with summarily, the higher authority may refer it back to the commanding officer of the accused to be so dealt with.

(4) If the charge is against an officer below the rank of lieutenant-colonel or a warrant officer and is capable of being dealt with summarily, the higher authority may refer it to the appropriate superior authority to be so dealt with.

(5) If the charge has been referred to the higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election has not been withdrawn with leave, he may not refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused, or (as the case may be) to the appropriate superior authority, to be dealt with summarily.

(6) This section has effect subject to any power of the higher authority under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

Summary dealings

76B.—(1) This section applies where a charge is to be dealt with summarily by a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority.

(2) References in this Act to dealing summarily with a charge are references to the taking of the following action, namely, determining whether the charge is proved and, accordingly, either dismissing the charge or recording a finding that the charge has been proved and awarding punishment.

(3) If, before determining whether the charge is proved, he considers it appropriate to do so, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority may amend the charge or substitute another charge for it and treat the amended or substituted charge as the charge to be dealt with summarily by him.

(4) If, before determining whether the charge is proved, he considers that it should not be dealt with summarily, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority may refer the charge to higher authority.

(5) If he determines that the charge has been proved, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall, before recording a finding that the charge has been proved, afford the accused an opportunity of electing court-martial trial.

(6) If the accused so elects, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall refer the charge to higher authority with a view to the trial of the accused by court-martial.

(7) If the accused does not so elect, or so elects but subsequently withdraws his election with leave, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall record a finding that the charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.

(8) If a charge has been referred to higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the higher authority shall—

(a) if the accused is an officer or warrant officer, refer the charge back to the appropriate superior authority;

(b) if the accused is a non—commissioned officer or soldier, refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused, 
for the appropriate superior authority or commanding officer to record a finding that the charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.

(9) This section has effect subject to any power of the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

(10) Nothing in this section or section 76A above shall be taken to prevent an officer from acting as both higher authority and appropriate superior authority in relation to a charge.

Punishments available on summary dealings

76C.—(1) This section applies where a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority records a finding that a charge against an accused has been proved.

(2) The commanding officer may award one or more of the following punishments—

(a) if the offender is a soldier, detention for a period not exceeding 60 days;
(b) fine;
(c) if the offender is a non-commissioned officer, severe reprimand or reprimand;
(d) where the offence has occasioned any expense, loss or damage, stoppages;
(e) any minor punishment for the time being authorised by the Defence Council.

(3) The appropriate superior authority may award one or more of the following punishments—

(a) except in the case of a warrant officer, forfeiture of seniority for a specified term or otherwise;
(b) fine;
(c) severe reprimand or reprimand;
(d) where the offence has occasioned any expense, loss or damage, stoppages.

(4) The commanding officer may not award a fine or minor punishment for an offence for which he awards detention.

(5) The appropriate superior authority may not award a fine for an offence for which he awards forfeiture of seniority.

(6) Except in the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act, the amount of a fine shall not exceed the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days.

(7) In the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act where the corresponding civil offence is a summary offence, the amount of a fine shall not exceed—

(a) the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days; or
(b) (if less) the maximum amount of the fine which could be imposed by a civil court on summary conviction.

(8) In the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act where the corresponding civil offence is an indictable offence, the amount of a fine shall not exceed—

(a) the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days; or
(b) (if less) the maximum amount of the fine which could be imposed by a civil court on conviction on indictment.

(9) A day's pay shall be taken, for the purposes of subsections (6) to (8) above, to be the gross pay that is, or would (apart from any forfeiture) be, issuable to the offender in respect of the day on which punishment is awarded in respect of the offence.

(10) If the offender is a lance-corporal or lance-bombardier, the commanding officer may, if he awards no other punishment or no other punishment except stoppages, order the offender to be reduced to the ranks.

(11) If the offender is an acting warrant officer or non-commissioned officer, the commanding officer may, if he awards no other punishment or no other punishment except stoppages, order the offender—

(a) to revert to his permanent rank;
(b) to assume an acting rank lower than that held by him but higher than his permanent rank; or
(c) where his permanent rank is that of lance-corporal or lance—bombardier, to forfeit his acting rank and be reduced to the ranks."

3. Sections 77 to 80 shall cease to have effect.

4.—(1) Section 82 (officers who are to act as commanding officers and appropriate superior authorities) shall be amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(2) A person may act as appropriate superior authority in relation to a person charged with an offence if—

(a) he is a general officer, flag officer, air officer or brigadier, or
(b) where the Defence Council so direct, he is a colonel or a naval or air force officer of corresponding rank."

(3) Subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.

5. For section 83 there shall be substituted the following section—

Regulations as to summary dealings etc

83.—(1) The Defence Council may make regulations with respect to the investigation of charges by commanding officers and summary dealings by commanding officers and appropriate superior authorities.

(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—

(a) the reporting of a charge to a commanding officer;
(b) the procedure to be followed by a commanding officer investigating a charge;
(c) the delegation by the commanding officer of any of his functions;
(d) the charges which are capable of being dealt with summarily;
(e) the amendment or substitution of charges;
(f) the procedure on summary dealings;
(g) limitations on the punishments which may be awarded on a summary dealing by a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority of a specified description;
(h) the information to be provided to a person afforded an opportunity of electing court-martial trial;
(i) the procedure for electing court-martial trial, including any period within which any such election may be made;
(j) the procedure for requesting leave to withdraw an election for court-martial trial and for withdrawing any such election;
(k) who may act as the higher authority and the appropriate superior authority in specified descriptions of cases;
(l) who is to act as the higher authority and the appropriate superior authority in any particular case.

(3) A regulation under this section which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void."

Air Force Act 1955 (c. 19)

6. The Air Force Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.

7. For section 76 there shall be substituted the following sections"—

Investigation of charges by commanding officer

76.—(1) An allegation that a person subject to air—force law ("the accused") has committed an offence against any provision of this Part of this Act shall be reported, in the form of a charge, to his commanding officer.

(2) A commanding officer shall investigate a charge reported to him under subsection (1) above.

(3) If, in the course of investigating a charge, the commanding officer considers it appropriate to do so, he may amend the charge or substitute another charge for it and treat the amended or substituted charge as if that charge had been reported to him under subsection (1) above.

(4) If, in the course of investigating a charge, it appears to the commanding officer that proceedings in respect of the matters to which the charge relates could be, and in the interests of the better administration of justice should be, taken against the accused otherwise than under this Act he may stay further proceedings with respect to the charge.

(5) After investigating a charge the commanding officer may, subject to subsection (6) below—

(a) dismiss the charge;
(b) refer the charge to higher authority; or
(c) deal summarily with the charge.

(6) The commanding officer may not deal summarily with a charge if—

 (a) the accused is an officer or warrant officer; or
(b) the charge is not capable of being dealt with summarily.

(7) This section has effect subject to any power of the commanding officer under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

Powers of higher authority

76A.—(1) Where a charge is referred to higher authority, the higher authority shall refer the case to the prosecuting authority unless he takes one of the steps mentioned in this section in relation to the charge.

(2) The higher authority may refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused with a direction to dismiss it or to stay all further proceedings in relation to it, and the commanding officer shall deal with the charge accordingly.

(3) If the charge is against a non-commissioned officer or airman and is capable of being dealt with summarily, the higher authority may refer it back to the commanding officer of the accused to be so dealt with.

(4) If the charge is against an officer below the rank of wing commander or a warrant officer and is capable of being dealt with summarily, the higher authority may refer it to the appropriate superior authority to be so dealt with.

(5) If the charge has been referred to the higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election has not been withdrawn with leave, he may not refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused, or (as the case may be) to the appropriate superior authority, to be dealt with summarily.

(6) This section has effect subject to any power of the higher authority under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

Summary dealings

76B.—(1) This section applies where a charge is to be dealt with summarily by a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority.

(2) References in this Act to dealing summarily with a charge are references to the taking of the following action, namely, determining whether the charge is proved and, accordingly, either dismissing the charge or recording a finding that the charge has been proved and awarding punishment.

(3) If, before determining whether the charge is proved, he considers it appropriate to do so, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority may amend the charge or


substitute another charge for it and treat the amended or substituted charge as the charge to be dealt with summarily by him.

(4) If, before determining whether the charge is proved, he considers that it should not be dealt with summarily, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority may refer the charge to higher authority.

(5) If he determines that the charge has been proved, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall, before recording a finding that the charge has been proved, afford the accused an opportunity of electing court-martial trial.

(6) If the accused so elects, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall refer the charge to higher authority with a view to the trial of the accused by court-martial.

(7) If the accused does not so elect, or so elects but subsequently withdraws his election with leave, the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority shall record a finding that the charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.

(8) If a charge has been referred to higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the higher authority shall—

(a) if the accused is an officer or warrant officer, refer the charge back to the appropriate superior authority;
(b) if the accused is a non-commissioned officer or airman, refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused,
for the appropriate superior authority or commanding officer to record a finding that the charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.

(9) This section has effect subject to any power of the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority under section 103A(1) below to direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

(10) Nothing in this section or section 76A above shall be taken to prevent an officer from acting as both higher authority and appropriate superior authority in relation to a charge.

Punishments available on summary dealings

76C.—(1) This section applies where a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority records a finding that a charge against an accused has been proved.

(2) The commanding officer may award one or more of the following punishments—

(a) if the offender is an airman, detention for a period not exceeding 60 days;
(b) fine;
(c) if the offender is a non-commissioned officer, severe reprimand or reprimand;
(d) where the offence has occasioned any expense, loss or damage, stoppages;
(e) any minor punishment for the time being authorised by the Defence Council.

(3) The appropriate superior authority may award one or more of the following punishments—

(a) except in the case of a warrant officer, forfeiture of seniority for a specified term or otherwise;
(b) fine;
(c) severe reprimand or reprimand;
(d) where the offence has occasioned any expense, loss or damage, stoppages.

(4) The commanding officer may not award a fine or minor punishment for an offence for which he awards detention.

(5) The appropriate superior authority may not award a fine for an offence for which he awards forfeiture of seniority.

(6) Except in the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act, the amount of a fine shall not exceed the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days.

(7) In the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act where the corresponding civil offence is a summary offence, the amount of a fine shall not exceed—

(a) the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days; or
(b) (if less) the maximum amount of the fine which could be imposed by a civil court on summary conviction.

(8) In the case of an offence against section 70 of this Act where the corresponding civil offence is an indictable offence, the amount of a fine shall not exceed—

(a) the amount of the offender's pay for twenty-eight days; or
(b) (if less) the maximum amount of the fine which could be imposed by a civil court on conviction on indictment.

(9) A day's pay shall be taken, for the purposes of subsections (6) to (8) above, to be the gross pay that is, or would (apart from any forfeiture) be, issuable to the offender in respect of the day on which punishment is awarded in respect of the offence.

(10) If the offender is an acting warrant officer or non-commissioned officer, the commanding officer may, if he awards no other punishment or no other punishment except stoppages, order the offender—

(a) to revert to his permanent rank; or
(b) to assume an acting rank lower than that held by him but higher than his permanent rank."

8. Sections 77 to 80 shall cease to have effect.

9.—(1) Section 82 (officers who are to act as commanding officers and appropriate superior authorities) shall be amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(2) A person may act as appropriate superior authority in relation to a person charged with an offence if—

(a) he is an air officer, flag officer, general officer or brigadier, or
(b) where the Defence Council so direct, he is a group captain or a naval or military officer of corresponding rank."

(3) Subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.

10. For section 83 there shall be substituted the following section—

Regulations as to summary dealings etc

83.—(1) The Defence Council may make regulations with respect to the investigation of charges by commanding officers and summary dealings by commanding officers and appropriate superior authorities.

(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—

(a) the reporting of a charge to a commanding officer;
(b) the procedure to be followed by a commanding officer investigating a charge;
(c) the delegation by the commanding officer of any of his functions;
(d) the charges which are capable of being dealt with summarily;
(e) the amendment or substitution of charges;
(f) the procedure on summary dealings;
(g) limitations on the punishments which may be awarded on a summary dealing by a commanding officer or appropriate superior authority of a specified description;
(h) the information to be provided to a person afforded an opportunity of electing court-martial trial;


(i) the procedure for electing court-martial trial, including any period within which any such election may be made;
(j) the procedure for requesting leave to withdraw an election for court-martial trial and for withdrawing any such election;
(k) who may act as the higher authority and the appropriate superior authority in specified descriptions of cases;
(1) who is to act as the higher authority and the appropriate superior authority in any particular case.

(3) A regulation under this section which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void."

Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53)

11. The Naval Discipline Act 1957 shall be amended as follows.

12. Sections 49, 50 and 52A shall cease to have effect.

13. After section 52A there shall be inserted the following sections—

Investigation and summary trial

Investigation of charges by commanding officer

52B.—(1) An allegation that a person subject to this Act ("the accused") has committed an offence against any provision of this Act shall be reported, in the form of a charge, to his commanding officer.

(2) A commanding officer shall investigate a charge reported to him under subsection (1) above.

(3) If, in the course of investigating a charge, the commanding officer considers it appropriate to do so, he may amend the charge or substitute another charge for it and treat the amended or substituted charge as if that charge had been reported to him under subsection (1) above.

(4) If, in the course of investigating a charge, it appears to the commanding officer that proceedings in respect of the matters to which the charge relates could be, and in the interests of the better administration of justice should be, taken against the accused otherwise than under this Act he may stay further proceedings with respect to the charge.

(5) After investigating a charge, the commanding officer may, subject to subsection (6) below—

(a) dismiss the charge;
(b) refer the charge to higher authority; or
(c) try the accused summarily.

(6) The commanding officer may not try summarily—
(a) any charge against an officer; or
(b) any charge which is not capable of being tried summarily.

(7) For the purposes of this Act, a charge is capable of being tried summarily if it is for an offence triable by court-martial under this Act, other than an offence punishable by sentence of death or an offence of murder.

Powers of higher authority

52C.—(1) Where a charge is referred to higher authority, the higher authority shall refer the case to the prosecuting authority unless he takes one of the steps mentioned in this section in relation to the charge.

(2) The higher authority may refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused with a direction to dismiss it or to stay all further proceedings in relation to it; and the commanding officer shall deal with the charge accordingly.

(3) If the charge is against a rating and is capable of being tried summarily, the higher authority may, subject to subsection (4) below, refer it back to the commanding officer of the accused to be so tried.

(4) If the charge has been referred to the higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election has not been withdrawn with leave, he may not refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused to be tried summarily.

(5) This section has effect subject to any power of the higher authority under section 52G(1) below to order a disciplinary court.

Summary trial

52D.—(1) This section applies where a charge is to be tried summarily.

(2) If the commanding officer considers that, if the charge were proved, he would award a punishment—

(a) in the case of a warrant officer, of disrating, a fine or stoppages;
(b) in the case of any other rating, of dismissal from Her Majesty's service, detention or disrating,
he shall afford the accused an opportunity of electing court-martial trial.

(3) If the accused so elects and does not withdraw his election with leave, the commanding officer shall refer the charge to higher authority with a view to the trial of the accused by court-martial.

(4) If a charge has been referred to higher authority as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the higher authority shall refer the charge back to the commanding officer of the accused to be tried summarily.

(5) If, in the course of trying the charge, the commanding officer considers that it should not be tried summarily, he may refer the charge to higher authority.

(6) If the commanding officer determines that the charge has not been proved, he shall acquit the accused.

(7) If the commanding officer determines that the charge has been proved, he shall record a finding of guilt and award punishment accordingly.

(8) A commanding officer shall not have power on a summary trial to award a sentence of dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service, a sentence of imprisonment or a sentence of detention for any term exceeding three months.

Commanding officers

52E.—(1) In this Act "the commanding officer", in relation to a person charged with an offence, means the officer in command of the ship or naval establishment to which he belongs at the time of the commission of the offence or at the time of its investigation or summary trial.

(2) The Defence Council may by regulations make provision—

(a) enabling the powers conferred by this Act on the commanding officer of an accused to be exercised by other persons of such descriptions as may be specified;
(b) with respect to the delegation by the commanding officer, or other person exercising the powers of a commanding officer by virtue of regulations under paragraph (a) above, of any of his powers to any officer not below the rank of lieutenant or corresponding rank.

(3) An officer to whom any powers are delegated by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above shall not have power to award any punishment other than a fine, stoppages or those described in section 43(1)(m) of this Act.

(4) The reference in subsection (3) above to stoppages does not include a reference to stoppages for personal injury.

Regulations as to summary trial etc

52F.—(1) The Defence Council may make regulations with respect to the investigation of charges by commanding officers and summary trial.

(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—

(a) the reporting of a charge to a commanding officer;


(b) the procedure to be followed by a commanding officer investigating a charge;
(c) the amendment or substitution of charges;
(d) the procedure on summary trial;
(e) limitations on the punishments which may be awarded on summary trial by a specified description of commanding officer;
(f) limitations on the punishments which may be so awarded to a specified description of accused;
(g) requirements for punishments to be approved before taking effect;
(h) the information to be provided to a person afforded an opportunity of electing court-martial trial;
(i) the procedure for electing court-martial trial, including any period within which any such election may be made;
(j) the procedure for requesting leave to withdraw an election for court-martial trial and for withdrawing any such election;
(k) who may act as the higher authority.

(3) A regulation under this section which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.

Disciplinary courts

52G.—(1) If an officer of Her Majesty's naval forces below the rank of commander is charged with an offence to which this section applies at a time when the force to which he belongs is on active service, the higher authority to whom the charge was referred may order a disciplinary court.

(2) A disciplinary court shall have power, subject to the provisions of this section and of any rules made under it, to try and punish the offence accordingly.

(3) This section applies to any offence triable by court-martial under this Act other than an offence under the following provisions—

(a) sections 2 to 4, 6, 9, 10, 23 and 24, section 29(1) so far as relating to public or service property, section 29A, and sections 34 to 37 and 42;
(b) sections 40 and 41, so far as applicable to an offence under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

(4) A disciplinary court shall consist of not less than three nor more than five officers, at least one of whom is not below the rank of commander.

(5) An officer shall not be a member of a disciplinary court unless he is an officer of Her Majesty's naval forces and is subject to this Act.

(6) The officer who orders a disciplinary court shall not be a member of the court.

(7) A disciplinary court shall not have power to award any punishment greater than dismissal from Her Majesty's service.

(8) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make rules as to the assembling, constitution, procedure and practice of disciplinary courts.

(9) Rules under subsection (8) above may apply in relation to disciplinary courts and to proceedings of such courts, with the necessary modifications, any provisions of this Part of this Act or of rules under section 58 of this Act relating to courts-martial and proceedings of courts-martial."

PART II

THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY

Army Act 1955 (c. 18)

14. After section 83 of the Army Act 1955 there shall be inserted the following sections—

The prosecuting authority

83A.—(1) Her Majesty may appoint a qualified officer belonging to Her military forces to be the prosecuting authority for the Army; and in this Act "the prosecuting authority" means the officer so appointed.

(2) An officer shall not be qualified to be appointed as the prosecuting authority unless he is—

(a) a person who has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
(b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years' standing; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least ten years' standing.

Functions of the prosecuting authority

83B.—(1) This section applies where a case has been referred to the prosecuting authority.

(2) If the case has been referred to him as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the prosecuting authority shall—

(a) if the accused is an officer or warrant officer, refer the case to the appropriate superior authority;
(b) if the accused is a non-commissioned officer or soldier, refer the case to the commanding officer of the accused,
for the appropriate superior authority or commanding officer to record a finding that the preliminary charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.

(3) In subsection (2) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge for which punishment would have been awarded had the accused not elected court-martial trial.

4) If the prosecuting authority considers that court-martial proceedings under this Act should be instituted, he shall—

(a) determine any charge to be preferred and (subject to subsection (5) below) whether any such charge is to be tried by general court-martial or district court-martial; and
(b) prefer any charge so determined by him.

(5) The prosecuting authority shall not determine that a charge against an officer be tried by district court-martial.

(6) The prosecuting authority shall, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, notify the commanding officer of the accused and a court administration officer of any charge preferred and the description of court-martial by which that charge is to be tried; and the commanding officer shall, in accordance with any such rules, inform the accused accordingly.

(7) The prosecuting authority shall have the conduct of any court-martial proceedings under this Act against the accused.

(8) Without prejudice to any other power of his in relation to the conduct of the proceedings, the prosecuting authority may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act—

(a) amend, or substitute another charge or charges for, any charge preferred;
(b) prefer an additional charge, or additional charges, against the accused;
(c) discontinue proceedings on any charge.

(9) The powers mentioned in subsection (8)(a) above may be exercised in relation to an amended or substituted charge as well as in relation to any charge preferred by the prosecuting authority.

(10) The prosecuting authority may not exercise any power mentioned in subsection (8)(a) or (c) above in relation to any charge against the accused after the commencement of the trial of that charge unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so.

(11) If, before the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused ("the original charge"), the prosecuting authority exercises the power mentioned in subsection (8)(b) above, he may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, direct any additional charge to be tried by the court-martial convened to try the original charge; and where he does so, subsection (6) above shall apply with such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed.

(12) The prosecuting authority may not exercise the power mentioned in subsection (8)(b) above after the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so; and where the prosecuting authority exercises that power with the leave of the court-martial, the court may try any additional charge preferred.

(13) If, before the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, he may direct that, for the purposes of section 134 of this Act, the accused is to be deemed to have been tried by court-martial for the offence charged.

(14) If, after the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, the court-martial may give a direction such as is mentioned in subsection (13) above.

Prosecuting officers

83C.—(1) The prosecuting authority may delegate any of his functions to officers appointed by him as prosecuting officers.

(2) An officer shall not be appointed as a prosecuting officer unless he is—

(a) a person who has a general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
(b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland."

Air Force Act 1955 (c. 19)

15. After section 83 of the Air Force Act 1955 there shall be inserted the following sections—

The prosecuting authority

83A.—(1) Her Majesty may appoint a qualified officer belonging to Her air forces to be the prosecuting authority for the Royal Air Force; and in this Act "the prosecuting authority" means the officer so appointed.

(2) An officer shall not be qualified to be appointed as the prosecuting authority unless he is—

(a) a person who has a ten year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
(b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least ten years' standing; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least ten years' standing.

Functions of the prosecuting authority

83B.—(1) This section applies where a case has been referred to the prosecuting authority.

(2) If the case has been referred to him as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the prosecuting authority shall—

(a) if the accused is an officer or warrant officer, refer the case to the appropriate superior authority;
(b) if the accused is a non-commissioned officer or airman, refer the case to the commanding officer of the accused,
for the appropriate superior authority or commanding officer to record a finding that the preliminary charge has been proved and award punishment accordingly.

(3) In subsection (2) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge for which punishment would have been awarded had the accused not elected court-martial trial.

(4) If the prosecuting authority considers that court-martial proceedings under this Act should be instituted, he shall—

(a) determine any charge to be preferred and (subject to subsection (5) below) whether any such charge is to be tried by general court-martial or district court-martial; and
(b) prefer any charge so determined by him.

(5) The prosecuting authority shall not determine that a charge against an officer be tried by district court-martial.

(6) The prosecuting authority shall, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, notify the commanding officer of the accused and a court administration officer of any charge preferred and the description of court-martial by which that charge is to be tried; and the commanding officer shall, in accordance with any such rules, inform the accused accordingly.

(7) The prosecuting authority shall have the conduct of any court-martial proceedings under this Act against the accused.

(8) Without prejudice to any other power of his in relation to the conduct of the proceedings, the prosecuting authority may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act—

(a) amend, or substitute another charge or charges for, any charge preferred;
(b) prefer an additional charge, or additional charges, against the accused;
(c) discontinue proceedings on any charge.

(9) The powers mentioned in subsection (8)(a) above may be exercised in relation to an amended or substituted charge as well as in relation to any charge preferred by the prosecuting authority.

(10) The prosecuting authority may not exercise any power mentioned in subsection (8)(a) or (c) above in relation to any charge against the accused after the commencement of the trial of that charge unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so.

(11) If, before the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused ("the original charge"), the prosecuting authority exercises the power mentioned in subsection (8)(b) above, he may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, direct any additional charge to be tried by the court-martial convened to try the original charge; and where he does so, subsection (6) above shall apply with such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed.

(12) The prosecuting authority may not exercise the power mentioned in subsection (8)(b) above after the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so; and where the prosecuting authority exercises that power with the leave of the court-martial, the court may try any additional charge preferred.

(13) If, before the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, he may direct that, for the purposes of section 134 of this Act, the accused is to be deemed to have been tried by court-martial for the offence charged.

(14) If, after the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, the court-martial may give a direction such as is mentioned in subsection (13) above.

Prosecuting officers

83C.—(1) The prosecuting authority may delegate any of his functions to officers appointed by him as prosecuting officers.

2) An officer shall not be appointed as a prosecuting officer unless he is—

(a) a person who has a general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;


(b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland."

Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53)

16. After section 52G of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 there shall be inserted the following sections—

The prosecuting authority

52H.—(1) Her Majesty may appoint a qualified officer of Her naval forces to be the prosecuting authority for the Royal Navy; and in this Act "the prosecuting authority" means the officer so appointed.

(2) An officer shall not be qualified to be appointed as the prosecuting authority unless he is—

(a) a person who has a five year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;.
(b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least five years' standing; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, of at least five years' standing.

Functions of the prosecuting authority

521.—(1) This section applies where a case has been referred to the prosecuting authority.

(2) If the case has been referred to him as a result of an election for court-martial trial, and that election is withdrawn with leave, the prosecuting authority shall refer the case to the commanding officer of the accused for the preliminary charge to be tried summarily.

(3) In subsection (2) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge which would have been tried summarily had the accused not elected court-martial trial.

(4) If the prosecuting authority considers that court-martial proceedings under this Act should be instituted, he shall determine any charge to be preferred and prefer any such charge.

(5) The prosecuting authority shall, in accordance with rules under section 58 of this Act, notify the commanding officer of the accused and a court administration officer of any charge preferred; and the commanding officer shall, in accordance with any such rules, inform the accused accordingly.

(6) The prosecuting authority shall have the conduct of any court-martial proceedings under this Act against the accused.

(7) Without prejudice to any other power of his in relation to the conduct of the proceedings, the prosecuting authority may, in accordance with rules under section 58 of this Act—

(a) amend, or substitute another charge or charges for, any charge preferred;
(b) prefer an additional charge, or additional charges, against the accused;
(c) discontinue proceedings on any charge.

(8) The powers mentioned in subsection (7)(a) above may be exercised in relation to an amended or substituted charge as well as in relation to any charge preferred by the prosecuting authority.

(9) The prosecuting authority may not exercise any power mentioned in subsection (7)(a) or (c) above in relation to any charge against the accused after the commencement of the trial of that charge unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so.

(10) If, before the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused ("the original charge"), the prosecuting authority exercises the power mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above, he may, in accordance with rules under section 58 of this Act, direct any additional charge to be tried by the court-martial convened to try the original charge; and where he does so, subsection (5) above shall apply with such exceptions and modifications as may be prescribed.

(11) The prosecuting authority may not exercise the power mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above after the commencement of the trial of a charge against the accused unless the court-martial gives him leave to do so; and where the prosecuting authority exercises that power with the leave of the court-martial, the court may try any additional charge preferred.

(12) If, before the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, he may direct that the accused shall not be liable to be tried summarily or by court-martial for the offence charged.

(13) If, after the commencement of the trial of any charge, the prosecuting authority discontinues proceedings on that charge, the court-martial may give a direction such as is mentioned in subsection (12) above.

Prosecuting officers

52J.—(l) The prosecuting authority may delegate any of his functions to officers appointed by him as prosecuting officers.

(2) An officer shall not be appointed as a prosecuting officer unless he is—

(a) a person who has a general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
(b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland."

PART III

Army Act 1955 (c. 18)

17. The Army Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.

18. Section 84 shall cease to have effect.

19. After section 84 there shall be inserted the following sections—

"Court administration officers."

84A. In this Act—

"court administration officer" means an officer (or other person) appointed by the Defence Council to convene general and district courts-martial and perform such other functions as may be prescribed; and

"the court administration officer", in relation to a court-martial, means the court administration officer who convened the court-martial and includes his successor or any person for the time being exercising his or his successor's functions.

Judge advocates

84B.—(1) In this Act "the judge advocate", in relation to a court-martial, means the judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General to be a member of the court-martial.

(2) No person shall be appointed as the judge advocate unless he is—

(a) a person who has a five year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
(b) an advocate in Scotland of at least five years' standing or a solicitor who has had a right of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary for at least five years; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland of at least five years' standing.

(3) Rulings and directions on questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) shall be given by the judge advocate.

(4) Any directions given by the judge advocate shall be binding on the court.

Convening of general and district courts martial

84C.—(1) On being notified by the prosecuting authority of the charge preferred and the description of court-martial by which the charge is to be tried, a court administration officer shall by order convene a court-martial of that description.

(2) The order convening the court-martial shall specify—

(a) the date, time and place at which the court-martial is to sit;
(b) the officers who are to be members of the court-martial;
(c) which of those officers is to be president of the court-martial;
(d) any other officers appointed for the purpose of filling vacancies,
and shall state that a judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General is to be a member of the court-martial.

(3) At any time before the commencement of the trial, the court administration officer may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, amend or withdraw the order convening the court-martial.

(4) The following shall not be eligible to be members of a court-martial for the trial of a charge—

(a) the court administration officer;
(b) an officer who at any time between the date on which the preliminary charge was reported to the commanding officer of the accused and the date of the trial has been the commanding officer of the accused;
(c) the higher authority to whom the preliminary charge against the accused was referred;
(d) any other officer who has investigated the subject matter of the charge against the accused;
(e) any other officer who under this Act has held, or has acted as one of the persons holding, an inquiry into matters relating to the subject matter of the charge against the accused.

(5) In subsection (4) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge referred to higher authority by the commanding officer of the accused.

Constitution of general and district courts-martial

84D.—(1) A general court-martial shall consist of the president, not less than four other military officers and the judge advocate.

(2) A district court-martial shall consist of the president, not less than two other military officers and the judge advocate.

(3) An officer shall not be appointed a member of a general court-martial unless he has held a commission in any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces for a period of not less than three years or for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than three years.

(4) An officer shall not be appointed a member of a district court-martial unless he has held a commission in any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces for a period of not less than two years or for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than two years.

(5) Not less than four of the members of a general court-martial shall be of a rank not below that of captain.

(6) A general court-martial for the trial of an officer above the rank of captain shall not include any member below the rank of captain.

(7) The president of a general or district court-martial shall not be below the rank of field officer unless in the opinion of the court administration officer a field officer having suitable qualifications is not, with due regard to the public service, available; and in any event the president of such a court-martial shall not be below the rank of captain.

(8) If, in the opinion of the court administration officer, the necessary number of military officers having suitable qualifications is not, with due regard to the public service,

available, he may appoint as any member of the court (but not as its president) any naval or air-force officer of corresponding rank to that required for a military officer.

(9) In this section-—
"air-force officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's air forces and subject to air-force law;
"military officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's military forces and subject to military law; and
"naval officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's naval forces and subject to the Naval Discipline Act 1957."

20. Section 85(3) shall cease to have effect.

21. Sections 86 to 90 shall cease to have effect.

22.—(1) Section 91 (place for sitting of court-martial and adjournment to other places) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for the words "Her Majesty's dominions" there shall be substituted the words "the United Kingdom"; and
(b) the words from "and the convening officer" to the end shall cease to have effect.

(3) In subsection (2), for the words from "shall" to "direction" there shall be substituted the word "may".

23.—(1) Section 92 (challenges by accused to members of court-martial) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for the word "officer" there shall be substituted the word "member".

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) for the word "they" there shall be substituted the words "the officers appointed members"; and
(b) for the words "those officers" there shall be substituted the words "the members".

(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) for the word "officer" there shall be substituted the word "member"; and
(b) for the words from "considered" to the end there shall be substituted the words "determined by the judge advocate".

(5) In subsection (4)—

(a) for the words from "objection" to "it" there shall be substituted the words "an objection to the president is allowed"; and
(b) for the word "convening" there shall be substituted the words "court administration".

(6) In subsection (5)—

(a) for the words from "objection" to "it" there shall be substituted the words "an objection to any other officer appointed a member of the court is allowed";
(b) for the word "member" in the second place it appears there shall be substituted the word "officer"; and
(c) for the word "members" in the second place it appears there shall be substituted the word "officers".

(7) After subsection (5) there shall be added the following subsection—

"(6) If an objection to the judge advocate is allowed, the judge advocate shall retire and another judge advocate shall be appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General."

24.—(1) Section 93 (administration of oaths) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) after the word "every" there shall be inserted the words "officer appointed a"; and
(b) the words "other than an exempted person" and "judge advocate" shall cease to have effect.

(3) Subsection (1A) shall cease to have effect.

25. In section 94 (courts—martial to sit in open court), after subsection (5) there shall be added the following subsections—

"(6) The judge advocate shall not be present while the other members of the court are deliberating on their finding on any charge.

(7) Any ruling or direction of the judge advocate on a question of law (including a question of procedure or practice) shall be given in open court.

(8) The judge advocate may determine, and give rulings on, questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) in the absence of the other members of the court and of any officers and other persons under instruction."

26.—(1) Section 95 (dissolution of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for the words "whether before or after" there shall be substituted the word "before"; and
(b) for the word "convening" in both places it appears there shall be substituted the words "court administration".

(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) Where, after the commencement of the trial, it appears to the judge advocate necessary or expedient in the interests of the administration of justice that a court-martial should be dissolved, he may by order dissolve the court-martial."

(4) In subsection (3), for the words "convening officer" there shall be substituted the words "judge advocate".

(5) Subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.

27.—(1) Section 96 (decisions of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for the words from "every" to "court-martial" there shall be substituted the words "the finding of a court-martial and any sentence awarded".

(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) The judge advocate shall not be entitled to vote on the finding."

(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) after the word "court" in the second place it appears there shall be inserted the words "entitled to vote on the finding"; and
(b) for the words "the members" in the second place they appear there shall be substituted the words "those members".

(5) In subsection (5), the words from "or on" to "finding" shall cease to have effect.

28. In section 97(3) (sentence of court-martial to be announced in open court) after the word "mercy" there shall be inserted the words "and any reasons for the sentence".

29.—(1) Section 99 (rules of evidence) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for the words "civil courts" there shall be substituted the words "trials on indictment"; and
(b) for the words "before a civil court" there shall be substituted the words "in a trial on indictment".

(3) In subsection (3), for the words "civil court" there shall be substituted the words "trial on indictment".

30. For section 103 there shall be substituted the following section—

Rules

103.—(1) The Secretary of State may make rules with respect to—

(a) the investigation, prosecution and trial of, and awarding of punishment for, offences cognizable by courts-martial;

(b) the review of findings and sentences of courts-martial.

(2) Rules under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—

(a) proceedings preliminary to trials by general or district courts-martial;
(b) the appointment of a judge advocate for any preliminary proceedings;
(c) the delegation by court administration officers of any of their functions;
(d) the convening and constitution of general and district courts-martial;
(e) the sittings, adjournment and dissolution of general and district courts-martial;
(f) the procedure to be followed in trials by general and district courts-martial;
(g) the representation of the accused at such trials and any preliminary proceedings;
(h) procuring the attendance of witnesses at such trials and any preliminary proceedings;
(i) enabling a general or district court-martial, in such cases and to such extent as may be prescribed, to amend a charge which is being tried by the court;
(j) enabling a general or district court-martial, where the particulars proved or admitted at the trial differ from those alleged in the charge but are sufficient to support a finding of guilty of the like offence as that charged, to make a finding of guilty subject to exceptions or variations specified in the finding if it appears to the court that the difference is not so material as to have prejudiced the accused in his defence;
(k) directing that the powers conferred by section 7 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 (which enables orders to be made for the inspection of bankers' books for the purposes of legal proceedings) may be exercised for the purposes of a general or district court-martial (whether within or without the United Kingdom) by the commanding officer of the accused or a judge advocate as well as by the court or a judge within the meaning of that Act;
(l) the forms of orders and other documents to be made for the purposes of any provision of this Act or of rules under this section;
(m) the cases in which, and extent to which, offences may be taken into consideration by a general or district court-martial and the powers of the court in relation to any offences taken into consideration;
(n) the recording of the proceedings of a general or district court-martial;
(o) the procedure to be followed on review of findings and sentences of general or district courts-martial.

(3) Rules made by virtue of paragraph (i) of subsection (2) above shall secure that the power to amend charges is not exercisable in circumstances substantially different from those in which indictments are amendable by a civil court in England, or otherwise than subject to the like conditions, as nearly as circumstances admit, as those subject to which indictments are so amendable.

(4) A rule under this section which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.

(5) Rules under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

31. After section 103 there shall be inserted the following sections—

Field General Courts-Martial

103A.—(1) Where an officer to whom this subsection applies—

(a) is commanding a body of the regular forces on active service; and
(b) is of opinion that it is not possible without serious detriment to the public service for a charge against a member of that body to be tried by a general or district court-martial,
he may direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

(2) Subsection (1) above applies to—

(a) the commanding officer who has investigated the charge;
(b) the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority who has determined on a summary dealing that the charge against the accused has been proved, in a case where the accused has elected court-martial trial and that election has not been withdrawn;
(c) where the charge is against an officer or warrant officer, the higher authority to whom the charge has been referred by the commanding officer.

(3) If an officer to whom subsection (1) above applies directs that a charge be tried by a field general court-martial, he shall by order convene a field general court-martial.

(4) The order convening the field general court-martial shall specify—

(a) the date, time and place at which the court-martial is to sit;
(b) the officers who are to be members of the court-martial;
(c) which of those officers is to be president of the court-martial.

(5) At any time before the commencement of the trial, the officer who convened the field general court-martial may, in accordance with rules under section 103C of this Act, amend or withdraw the order convening the court-martial.

(6) Subject to subsection (7) below, the officer convening the field general court-martial shall not be a member of the court-martial.

(7) The officer convening the field general court-martial may be its president if, in his opinion, it is not possible, without serious detriment to the public service, to appoint another officer as president.

Constitution of field general courts martial

103B.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, a field general court-martial shall consist of the president and not less than two other military officers.

(2) If the officer who convened the field general court-martial is of opinion that three military officers having suitable qualifications are not available without serious detriment to the public service, the field general court-martial shall consist of the president and one other military officer.

(3) Unless the officer convening the field general court-martial is of opinion that a judge advocate is not available without serious detriment to the public service, a judge advocate shall be a member of the court-martial.

(4) In subsection (3) above, "a judge advocate" means a judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General or, if the officer convening the field general court-martial is of opinion that no such judge advocate is available without serious detriment to the public service, a qualified officer appointed by that officer.

(5) An officer is "qualified" for the purposes of subsection (4) above if he is—

(a) a person who has a general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
(b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland.

(6) The president of a field general court-martial shall not be below the rank of captain.

(7) If a field general court-martial is to be convened at any place where in the opinion of the officer convening it the necessary number of military officers having suitable qualifications is not available to form the court, and cannot be made available without serious detriment to the public service, the officer may appoint as any member of the court (but not as its president) any naval or air-force officer of corresponding rank to that required for a military officer.

(8) A field general court-martial shall have the powers of a general court-martial except that where less than three officers are members of the court the sentence shall not exceed imprisonment for a term of two years or detention under section 71AA of this Act for a period of two years.

(9) In this section—
"air force officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's air forces and subject to air-force law;
"military officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's military forces and subject to military law; and
"naval officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's naval forces and subject to the Naval Discipline Act 1957.

Field General Court Martial Rules

103C.—(1) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make rules with respect to field general courts-martial.

(2) Rules under this section may in particular—

(a) provide for any provision of this Act relating to general or district courts-martial or the proceedings of such courts-martial to apply to field general courts-martial or the proceedings of such courts-martial with the necessary modifications;
(b) make any provision with respect to field general courts-martial which may be made with respect to general and district courts-martial by rules under section 103 of this Act."

32. Sections 104 to 106 shall cease to have effect.

Air Force Act 1955 (c. 19)

33. The Air Force Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.

34. Section 84 shall cease to have effect.

35. After section 84 there shall be inserted the following sections—

Court administration officers

84A. In this Act—

"court administration officer" means an officer (or other person) appointed by the Defence Council to convene general and district courts-martial, and perform such other functions as may be prescribed; and

"the court administration officer", in relation to a court-martial, means the court administration officer who convened the court-martial and includes his successor or any person for the time being exercising his or his successor's functions.

Judge advocates

84B.—(1) In this Act "the judge advocate", in relation to a court-martial, means the judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General to be a member of the court-martial.

(2) No person shall be appointed as the judge advocate unless he is—

(a) a person who has a five year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
(b) an advocate in Scotland of at least five years' standing or a solicitor who has had a right of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary for at least five years; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland of at least five years' standing.

(3) Rulings and directions on questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) shall be given by the judge advocate.

(4) Any directions given by the judge advocate shall be binding on the court.

Convening of general and district courts martial

84C.—(1) On being notified by the prosecuting authority of the charge preferred and the description of court-martial by which the charge is to be tried, a court administration officer shall by order convene a court-martial of that description.

(2) The order convening the court-martial shall specify—

(a) the date, time and place at which the court-martial is to sit;
(b) the officers who are to be members of the court-martial;
(c) which of those officers is to be president of the court-martial;
(d) any other officers appointed for the purpose of filling vacancies,
and shall state that a judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General is to be a member of the court-martial.

(3) At any time before the commencement of the trial, the court administration officer may, in accordance with rules under section 103 of this Act, amend or withdraw the order convening the court-martial.

(4) The following shall not be eligible to be members of a court-martial for the trial of a charge—

(a) the court administration officer;
(b) an officer who at any time between the date on which the preliminary charge was reported to the commanding officer of the accused and the date of the trial has been the commanding officer of the accused;
(c) the higher authority to whom the preliminary charge against the accused was referred;
(d) any other officer who has investigated the subject matter of the charge against the accused;
(e) any other officer who under this Act has held, or has acted as one of the persons holding, an inquiry into matters relating to the subject matter of the charge against the accused.

(5) In subsection (4) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge referred to higher authority by the commanding officer of the accused.

Constitution of general and district courts martial

84D.—(1) A general court-martial shall consist of the president, not less than four other air-force officers and the judge advocate.

(2) A district court-martial shall consist of the president, not less than two other air-force officers and the judge advocate.

(3) An officer shall not be appointed a member of a general court-martial unless he has held a commission in any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces for a period of not less than three years or for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than three years.

(4) An officer shall not be appointed a member of a district court-martial unless he has held a commission in any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces for a period of not less than two years or for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than two years.

(5) Not less than four of the members of a general court-martial shall be of a rank not below that of flight lieutenant.

(6) A general court-martial for the trial of an officer above the rank of flight lieutenant shall not include any member below the rank of flight lieutenant.

(7) The president of a general or district court-martial shall not be below the rank of squadron leader unless in the opinion of the court administration officer a squadron leader having suitable qualifications is not, with due regard to the public service, available; and in any event the president of such a court-martial shall not be below the rank of flight lieutenant.

(8) If, in the opinion of the court administration officer, the necessary number of air-force officers having suitable qualifications is not, with due regard to the public service, available, he may appoint as any member of the court (but not as its president) any naval or military officer of corresponding rank to that required for an air-force officer.

(9) In this section—
"air-force officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's air forces and subject to air-force law;
"military officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's military forces and subject to military law; and
"naval officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's naval forces and subject to the Naval Discipline Act 1957."

36. Section 85(3) shall cease to have effect.

37. Sections 86 to 90 shall cease to have effect.

38.—(1) Section 91 (place for sitting of court-martial and adjournment to other places) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for the words "Her Majesty's dominions" there shall be substituted the words "the United Kingdom"; and
(b) the words from "and the convening officer" to the end shall cease to have effect.

(3) In subsection (2), for the words from "shall" to "direction" there shall be substituted the word "may".

39.—(1) Section 92 (challenges by accused to members of court-martial) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for the word "officer" there shall be substituted the word "member".

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) for the word "they" there shall be substituted the words "the officers appointed members"; and
(b) for the words "those officers" there shall be substituted the words "the members".

(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) for the word "officer" there shall be substituted the word "member"; and
(b) for the words from "considered" to the end there shall be substituted the words "determined by the judge advocate".

(5) In subsection (4)—

(a) for the words from "objection" to "it" there shall be substituted the words "an objection to the president is allowed"; and


(b) for the word "convening" there shall be substituted the words "court administration".

(6) In subsection (5)—

(a) for the words from "objection" to "it" there shall be substituted the words "an objection to any other officer appointed a member of the court is allowed";
(b) for the word "member" in the second place it appears there shall be substituted the word "officer"; and
(c) for the word "members" in the second place it appears there shall be substituted the word "officers".

(7) After subsection (5) there shall be added the following subsection—
(6) If an objection to the judge advocate is allowed, the judge advocate shall retire and another judge advocate shall be appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General.

40.—(1) Section 93 (administration of oaths) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after the word "every" there shall be inserted the words "officer appointed a"; and
(b) the words "other than an exempted person" and "judge advocate" shall cease to have effect.

(3) Subsection (1A) shall cease to have effect.

41. In section 94 (courts-martial to sit in open court), after subsection (5) there shall be added the following subsections—

"(6) The judge advocate shall not be present while the other members of the court are deliberating on their finding on any charge.

(7) Any ruling or direction of the judge advocate on a question of law (including a question of procedure or practice) shall be given in open court.

(8) The judge advocate may determine, and give rulings on, questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) in the absence of the other members of the court and of any officers and other persons under instruction."

42.—(1) Section 95 (dissolution of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for the words "whether before or after" there shall be substituted the word "before"; and
(b) for the word "convening" in both places it appears there shall be substituted the words "court administration".

(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1 A) Where, after the commencement of the trial, it appears to the judge advocate necessary or expedient in the interests of the administration of justice that a court-martial should be dissolved, he may by order dissolve the court-martial."

(4) In subsection (3), for the words "convening officer" there shall be substituted the words "judge advocate".

(5) Subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.

43.—(I) Section 96 (decisions of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for the words from "every" to "court-martial" there shall be substituted the words "the finding of a court-martial and any sentence awarded".

(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) The judge advocate shall not be entitled to vote on the finding."

(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) after the word "court" in the second place it appears there shall be inserted the words "entitled to vote on the finding"; and

(b) for the words "the members" in the second place they appear there shall be substituted the words "those members".

(5) In subsection (5), the words from "or on" to "finding" shall cease to have effect.

44. In section 97(3) (sentence of court-martial to be announced in open court) after the word "mercy" there shall be inserted the words "and any reasons for the sentence".

45.—(1) Section 99 (rules of evidence) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for the words "civil courts" there shall be substituted the words "trials on indictment"; and
(b) for the words "before a civil court" there shall be substituted the words "in a trial on indictment".

(3) In subsection (3), for the words "civil court" there shall be substituted the words "trial on indictment".

46. For section 103 there shall be substituted the following section—

Rules

103.—(1) The Secretary of State may make rules with respect to—

(a) the investigation, prosecution and trial of, and awarding of punishment for, offences cognizable by courts-martial;
(b) the review of findings and sentences of courts-martial.

(2) Rules under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—

(a) proceedings preliminary to trials by general or district courts-martial;
(b) the appointment of a judge advocate for any preliminary proceedings;
(c) the delegation by court administration officers of any of their functions;
(d) the convening and constitution of general and district courts-martial;
(e) the sittings, adjournment and dissolution of general and district courts-martial;
(f) the procedure to be followed in trials by general and district courts-martial;
(g) the representation of the accused at such trials and any preliminary proceedings;
(h) procuring the attendance of witnesses at such trials and any preliminary proceedings;
(i) enabling a general or district court-martial, in such cases and to such extent as may be prescribed, to amend a charge which is being tried by the court;
(j) enabling a general or district court-martial, where the particulars proved or admitted at the trial differ from those alleged in the charge but are sufficient to support a finding of guilty of the like offence as that charged, to make a finding of guilty subject to exceptions or variations specified in the finding if it appears to the court that the difference is not so material as to have prejudiced the accused in his defence;
(k) directing that the powers conferred by section 7 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 (which enables orders to be made for the inspection of bankers' books for the purposes of legal proceedings) may be exercised for the purposes of a general or district court-martial (whether within or without the United Kingdom) by the commanding officer of the accused or a judge advocate as well as by the court or a judge within the meaning of that Act;
(l) the forms of orders and other documents to be made for the purposes of any provision of this Act or of rules under this section;


(m) the cases in which, and extent to which, offences may be taken into consideration by a general or district court-martial and the powers of the court in relation to any offences taken into consideration;
(n) the recording of the proceedings of a general or district court-martial;
(o) the procedure to be followed on review of findings and sentences of general or district courts-martial.

(3) Rules made by virtue of paragraph (i) of subsection (2) above shall secure that the power to amend charges is not exercisable in circumstances substantially different from those in which indictments are amendable by a civil court in England, or otherwise than subject to the like conditions, as nearly as circumstances admit, as those subject to which indictments are so amendable.

(4) A rule under this section which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.

(5) Rules under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

47. After section 103 there shall be inserted the following sections—

Field General Courts—Martial

103A.—(1) Where an officer to whom this subsection applies—

(a) is commanding a body of the regular air force on active service; and
(b) is of opinion that it is not possible without serious detriment to the public service for a charge against a member of that body to be tried by a general or district court-martial, he may direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial.

(2) Subsection (1) above applies to—

(a) the commanding officer who has investigated the charge;
(b) the commanding officer or appropriate superior authority who has determined on a summary dealing that the charge against the accused has been proved, in a case where the accused has elected court-martial trial and that election has not been withdrawn; (c) where the charge is against an officer or warrant officer, the higher authority to whom the charge has been referred by the commanding officer.

(3) If an officer to whom subsection (1) above applies directs that a charge be tried by a field general court-martial, he shall by order convene a field general court-martial.

(4) The order convening the field general court-martial shall specify—

(a) the date, time and place at which the court-martial is to sit;
(b) the officers who are to be members of the court-martial;
(c) which of those officers is to be president of the court-martial.

(5) At any time before the commencement of the trial, the officer who convened the field general court-martial may, in accordance with rules under section 103C of this Act, amend or withdraw the order convening the court-martial.

(6) Subject to subsection (7) below, the officer convening the field general court-martial shall not be a member of the court-martial.

(7) The officer convening the field general court-martial may be its president if, in his opinion, it is not possible, without serious detriment to the public service, to appoint another officer as president.

Constitution of field general courts martial

103B.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, a field general court-martial shall consist of the president and not less than two other air-force officers.

(2) If the officer who convened the field general court-martial is of opinion that three air-force officers having suitable qualifications are not available without serious detriment to the public service, the field general court-martial shall consist of the president and one other air-force officer.

(3) Unless the officer convening the field general court-martial is of opinion that a judge advocate is not available without serious detriment to the public service, a judge advocate shall be a member of the court-martial.

(4) In subsection (3) above, "a judge advocate" means a judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Judge Advocate General or, if the officer convening the field general court-martial is of opinion that no such judge advocate is available without serious detriment to the public service, a qualified officer appointed by that officer.

(5) An officer is "qualified" for the purposes of subsection (4) above if he is—

(a) a person who has a general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
(b) an advocate or solicitor in Scotland; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland.

(6) The president of a field general court-martial shall not be below the rank of flight lieutenant.

(7) If a field general court-martial is to be convened at any place where in the opinion of the officer convening it the necessary number of air-force officers having suitable qualifications is not available to form the court, and cannot be made available without serious detriment to the public service, the officer may appoint as any member of the court (but not as its president) any naval or military officer of corresponding rank to that required for an air-force officer.

(8) A field general court-martial shall have the powers of a general court-martial except that where less than three officers are members of the court the sentence shall not exceed imprisonment for a term of two years or detention under section 71AA of this Act for a period of two years.

(9) In this section—
"air-force officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's air forces and subject to air-force law;
"military officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's military forces and subject to military law; and
"naval officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's naval forces and subject to the Naval Discipline Act 1957.

Field General Court Martial Rules

103C.—(1) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make rules with respect to field general courts-martial.

(2) Rules under this section may in particular—

(a) provide for any provision of this Act relating to general or district courts-martial or the proceedings of such courts-martial to apply to field general courts-martial or the proceedings of such courts-martial with the necessary modifications;
(b) make any provision with respect to field general courts-martial which may be made with respect to general and district courts-martial by rules under section 103 of this Act."

48. Sections 104 to 106 shall cease to have effect.

Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53)

49. The Naval Discipline Act 1957 shall be amended as follows.

50. Section 53 shall cease to have effect.

51. After section 53 there shall be inserted the following sections—

Court administration officers

53A. In this Act—

"court administration officer" means an officer (or other person) appointed by the Defence Council to order courts-martial and perform such other functions as may be prescribed by rules under section 58 of this Act; and

"the court administration officer", in relation to a court-martial, means the court administration officer who ordered the court-martial and includes his successor or any person for the time being exercising his or his successor's functions.

Judge advocates

53B.—(1) In this Act "the judge advocate", in relation to a court-martial, means the judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Chief Naval Judge Advocate to be a member of the court-martial.

(2) No person shall be appointed as the judge advocate unless he is—
(a) a person who has a five year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
(b) an advocate in Scotland of at least five years' standing or a solicitor who has had a right of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary for at least five years; or
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland of at least five years' standing.)

(3) Rulings and directions on questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) shall be given by the judge advocate.

(4) Any directions given by the judge advocate shall be binding on the court.

Ordering of courts martial

53C.—(1) On being notified by the prosecuting authority of the charge preferred, a court administration officer shall order a court-martial.

(2) The order assembling the court-martial shall specify—
(a) the date, time and place at which the court-martial is to sit;
(b) the officers who are to be members of the court-martial;
(c) which of those officers is to be president of the court-martial;
(d) any other officers appointed for the purpose of filling vacancies,
and shall state that a judge advocate appointed by or on behalf of the Chief Naval Judge Advocate is to be a member of the court-martial.

(3) At any time before the commencement of the trial, the court administration officer may, in accordance with rules under section 58 of this Act, amend or withdraw the order assembling the court-martial.

(4) The following shall not be eligible to be members of the court-martial for the trial of a charge—
(a) the court administration officer;
(b) an officer who at any time between the date on which the preliminary charge was reported to the commanding officer of the accused and the date of the trial has been the commanding officer of the accused;
(c) the higher authority to whom the preliminary charge against the accused was referred;
(d) any other officer who has investigated the subject matter of the charge against the accused;

(e) any other officer who under this Act has held, or has acted as one of the persons holding, an inquiry into matters relating to the subject matter of the charge against the accused.

(5) In subsection (4) above "the preliminary charge" means the charge referred to higher authority by the commanding officer of the accused."

52. For section 54 there shall be substituted the following section—

Composition of courts martial

54.—(1) A court-martial shall consist of the president, not less than four nor more than eight other naval officers and the judge advocate.

(2) An officer shall not be appointed a member of a court-martial unless he is of or above the rank of lieutenant and he has been an officer of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces for a period of not less than three years or for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than three years.

(3) The officers appointed members of a court-martial shall not all belong to the same ship or naval establishment.

(4) The president of a court-martial shall not be below the rank of captain, and in the case of a court-martial for the trial of an officer of flag rank shall be an officer of flag rank.

(5) A court-martial for the trial of an officer of flag rank shall not include any member below the rank of captain.

(6) A court-martial for the trial of a commodore or captain shall not include any member below the rank of commander.

(7) A court-martial for the trial of a commander shall include at least two members, in addition to the president, who are not below the rank of commander.

(8) If, in the opinion of the court administration officer, the necessary number of naval officers having suitable qualifications is not, with due regard to the public service, available, he may appoint as any member of the court (but not as its president) any military or air-force officer of corresponding rank to that required for a naval officer.

(9) In this section—
"air-force officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's air forces and subject to air-force law;
"military officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's military forces and subject to 'military law; and
"naval officer" means an officer belonging to Her Majesty's naval forces and subject to this Act."

53. Section 55 shall cease to have effect.

54.—(1) Section 56 (place and time of sittings of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for the words from "appointed" to the end there shall be substituted the words "specified in the order assembling the court".

(3) In subsection (2), the words from "and shall" to the end shall cease to have effect.

(4) In subsection (3), for the word "prosecutor" there shall be substituted the words "prosecuting authority".

55. After section 56 there shall be inserted the following section—

Dissolution of courts martial

56A.—(1) Where, before the commencement of the trial, it appears to the court administration officer necessary or expedient in the interests of the administration of justice that a court-martial be dissolved, he may by order dissolve the court-martial.

(2) Where, after the commencement of the trial, it appears to the judge advocate necessary or expedient in the interests of the administration of justice that a court-martial be dissolved, he may by order dissolve the court-martial.

(3) If after the commencement of the trial the president dies or is otherwise unable to attend, the court-martial shall be dissolved.

(4) Where a court-martial is dissolved the accused may be tried by another court."

56.—(1) Section 57 (quorum) shall be amended as follows.

(2) Subsections (1) and (3) shall cease to have effect.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) for the word "members" in both places it appears there shall be substituted the word "officers"; and
(b) after the word "that" there shall be inserted the words "an officer appointed".

57. For section 58 there shall be substituted the following section—

Rules

58.—(1) The Secretary of State may make rules with respect to—
(a) the investigation, prosecution and trial of, and the awarding of punishment for, offences cognizable by courts-martial;
(b) the review of findings and sentences of courts-martial.)

(2) Rules under this section may in particular make provision with respect to—
(a) proceedings preliminary to trials by courts-martial;
(b) the appointment of a judge advocate for any preliminary proceedings;
(c) the delegation by court administration officers of any of their functions;
(d) the ordering and composition of courts-martial;
(e) the sittings, adjournment and dissolution of courts-martial;
(f) the procedure to be followed in trials by courts-martial;
(g) the functions of the clerk of the court and the exercise by him of those functions;
(h) the representation of the accused at trials by courts-martial and any preliminary proceedings;
(i) procuring the attendance of witnesses at such trials and any preliminary proceedings;
(j) enabling a court-martial, in such cases and to such extent as may be prescribed by the rules, to amend a charge which is being tried by the court;
(k) enabling a court-martial, where the particulars proved or admitted at the trial differ from those alleged in the charge but are sufficient to support a finding of guilty of the like offence as that charged, to make a finding of guilty subject to exceptions or variations specified in the finding if it appears to the court that the difference is not so material as to have prejudiced the accused in his defence;
(1) directing that the powers conferred by section 7 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 (which enables orders to be made for the inspection of bankers' books for the purposes of legal proceedings) may be exercised for the purposes of a court-martial (whether within or without the United Kingdom) by the commanding officer of the accused or a judge advocate, as well as by the court or a judge within the meaning of that Act;
(m) the forms of orders and other documents to be made for the purposes of any provision of this Act or of rules under this section;
(n) the cases in which, and extent to which, offences may be taken into consideration by a court-martial and the powers of the court in relation to any offences taken into consideration;
(o) the recording of the proceedings of a court-martial;
(p) the procedure to be followed on review of findings and sentences of courts-martial.

(3) Rules made by virtue of paragraph (j) of subsection (2) above shall secure that the power to amend charges is not exercisable in circumstances substantially different from those in which indictments are amendable by a civil court in England, or otherwise than subject to the like conditions, as nearly as circumstances admit, as those subject to which indictments are so amendable.

(4) Rules under this section which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.

(5) Rules under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

58.—(1) Section 59 (challenges by accused to members of court-martial) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after the words "Before the" there shall be inserted the words "officers appointed";
(b) for the words "officers constituting" there shall be substituted the words "members of'; and
(c) for the words from "being" to the end there shall be substituted the words "any of those members".

(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) for the word "officer" there shall be substituted the word "member"; and
(b) for the words from "considered" to the end there shall be substituted the words "determined by the judge advocate".

(4) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(3) If an objection to the president is allowed, the court shall be dissolved."

(5) In subsection (4)—
(a) for the words from "objection" to "the member" there shall be substituted the words "an objection to any other officer appointed a member of the court is allowed";
(b) for the word "nominated" there shall be substituted the word "appointed"; and
(c) for the words "section fifty—four" there shall be substituted the words "section 53C".

(6) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection

"(4A) If an objection to the judge advocate is allowed, the judge advocate shall retire and another judge advocate shall be appointed by or on behalf of the Chief Naval Judge Advocate."

(7) Subsection (5) shall cease to have effect.

(8) In subsection (6)—
(a) after the words "After the" there shall be inserted the words "officers appointed"; and
(b) for the words "Defence Council" there shall be substituted the words "reviewing authority".

59.—(1) Section 60 (administration of oaths) shall be amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(1) An oath shall be administered separately to each member of a court-martial, to the clerk of the court and any officer or other person in attendance for instruction, and to any person appointed to attend as interpreter."

(3) In subsection (5), for the words "General Orders" there shall be substituted the word "rules".

60. In section 61 (courts-martial to sit in open court), after subsection (2) there shall be added the following subsections—
"(3) A court-martial shall sit in closed court while deliberating on their finding and sentence on any charge.
(4) A court-martial may sit in closed court on any other deliberation amongst the members.


(5) Where a court-martial sits in closed court no person shall be present except the members of the court and such other persons as may be prescribed by rules under section 58 of this Act.
(6) The judge advocate shall not be present while the other members of the court are deliberating on their finding on any charge.
(7) Any ruling or direction of the judge advocate on a question of law (including a question of procedure or practice) shall be given in open court.
(8) The judge advocate may determine, and give rulings on, questions of law (including questions of procedure and practice) in the absence of the other members of the court."

61.—(1) Section 62 (findings and sentences of courts-martial) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for the words from "every" to "court-martial" there shall be substituted the words "the finding of a court-martial and any sentence awarded".

(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) The judge advocate shall not be entitled to vote on the finding.

(4) In subsection (3), after the word "mercy" there shall be inserted the words "and any reasons for the sentence".

(5) In subsection (4)—
(a) after the word "court" in the second place it appears there shall be inserted the words "entitled to vote on the finding"; and
(b) for the words "the members" in the second place they appear there shall be substituted the words "those members".

62. In section 64(1) (summoning of witnesses), for the words "clerk of the court" there shall be substituted the words "court administration officer".

63. After section 64 there shall be inserted the following sections—

Rules of evidence

64A.—(1) The rules as to the admissibility of evidence to be observed in proceedings before courts-martial shall, subject to Schedule 13 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (evidence before courts-martial etc) and to service modifications, be the same as those observed in trials on indictment in England, and no person shall be required in proceedings before a court-martial to answer any question or to produce any document which he could not be required to answer or produce in similar proceedings in a trial on indictment in England.

(2) In this section "service modifications" means such modifications as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe, being modifications which appear to him to be necessary or proper for the purposes of proceedings before a court-martial; and it is hereby declared that in this section—

"rules" includes rules contained in or made by virtue of an enactment; and
"enactment" includes an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(4) A court-martial shall take judicial notice of all matters of notoriety, including all matters within the general service knowledge of the court, and of all other matters of which judicial notice would be taken in a trial on indictment in England.

Proofs at courts martial by written statement

64B.—(1) Without prejudice to section 64A above, section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (proof by written statement) shall apply subject to subsection (2) below and to service

modifications, for the purposes of proceedings before courts-martial (whether held in the United Kingdom or not) as it applies to proceedings on indictment.

(2) The statements rendered admissible by this section are statements made—

(a) in the United Kingdom by any person, and
(b) outside the United Kingdom by any person who at the time of making the statement was—

(i) a person subject to service law, or
(ii) a person to whom Parts I and II of this Act are applied by section 117 or section 118 of this Act, or to whom Part II of the Army Act 1955 or Part II of the Air Force Act 1955 is applied by section 208A or section 209 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 respectively,
and the persons mentioned in this paragraph include persons to whom section 119 of this Act, section 131 of the Army Act 1955 or section 131 of the Air Force Act 1955 apply.

(3) In subsection (1) above "service modifications" means—
(a) modifications made by any regulations under section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 in force on the coming into force of this section, and
(b) such modifications in the said section 9, as applied by subsection (1) above, as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe thereafter, being modifications which appear to him to be necessary or proper for the purpose of the operation of that section in relation to proceedings before a court-martial.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) Section 89 of the said Act of 1967 (punishment of making false statements tendered under section 9) shall apply to any statement rendered admissible by this section.

Proof of service facts and records

64C.—(1) This section applies with respect to proceedings before a court-martial.

(2) A letter, return or other document stating that any person—
(a) was or was not serving at any specified time or during any specified period in any part of Her Majesty's forces;
(b) was discharged from any part of those forces at or before any specified time;
(c) held or did not hold at any specified time any specified rank or appointment in any of those forces;
(d) had at or before any specified time been attached, posted or transferred to any part of those forces;
(e) at any specified time or during any specified time was or was not serving or held or did not hold any rank or appointment in any particular country or place; or
(f) was or was not at any specified time authorised to use or wear any decoration, badge or emblem;
shall if purporting to be issued by or on behalf of the Defence Council or by a person authorised by them, be evidence of the matter stated in the document.

(3) A record—
(a) made in any service record in pursuance of any Act or of Queen's Regulations, or otherwise in pursuance of naval duty; and
(b) purporting to be signed by the commanding officer or by any person whose duty it was to make or keep the records,
may be received without formal proof in all trials under this Act as prima facie evidence of the record.

(4) A copy of a record (including the signature thereto) such as is mentioned in subsection (3) above, purporting to be certified to be a true copy by a person stated in the certificate


to have the custody of the record, may be received without formal proof in all trials under this Act as prima facie evidence of the record.

(5) A document purporting to be issued by order of the Defence Council and to contain instructions given or regulations made by the Defence Council shall be evidence of the giving of the instructions or making of the regulations and of their contents.

(6) A certificate purporting to be issued by or on behalf of the Defence Council or by a person authorised by them, and stating—
(a) that a decoration of a description specified in or, as annexed to the certificate is a military, naval or air force decoration; or
(b) that a badge or emblem of a description specified in or, as annexed to the certificate is one supplied or authorised by the Defence Council;
shall be evidence of the matters stated in the certificate.

(7) A certificate purporting to be signed by a person's commanding officer or any officer authorised by him to give the certificate, and stating the contents of, or of any part of, standing orders or other routine orders of a continuing nature made for—
(a) any ship, train or aircraft;
(b) any formation or unit or body of Her Majesty's forces; or
(c) any command or other area, or place;
shall in proceedings against that person be evidence of the matters stated in the certificate.

(8) Any document which would be evidence in any proceedings under the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 shall in like manner, subject to the like conditions, and for the like purposes, be evidence in a court-martial under this Act.

Privilege of witnesses and others at courtsmartial

64D. A witness before a court-martial or any other person whose duty it is to attend on or before the court shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as a witness before the High Court in England."

PART IV

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951 (c. 46)

64. In section 28(2) of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1951 (qualification for appointment as Judge Advocate of Her Majesty's Fleet), in paragraph (b), for the words from "been" to "and" there shall be substituted the words "had a right of audience in the Court of Session or".

65. In section 31 of that Act (qualification for appointment as Judge Advocate General and his assistants), in paragraph (b) in each of subsections (1), (2) and (3), for the words from "been" to "and" there shall be substituted the words "had a right of audience in the Court of Session or".

Army Act 1955 (c. 18)

66. The Army Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.

67. In section 134 (persons not to be tried under Act for offences already disposed of), in subsection (1)(b), for the words "been found guilty on the charge" there shall be substituted the words "had a finding that the charge has been proved recorded against him".

68. Section 139 shall cease to have effect.

69. In section 143(1) (interpretation of Part II)—

(a) the definition of "convening officer" shall cease to have effect; and
(b) in the definition of "prescribed", for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the words "rules under section 103 of this Act".

70. In section 198 (general provisions as to evidence), in subsection (9), after the words "that Act" there shall be inserted the words ", or in any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act 1957, by virtue of section 64C of that Act,".

71. In section 209(3) (modifications of Act in relation to trial of civilians by courts-martial)—
(a) paragraph (d) shall cease to have effect;
(b) in paragraph (fa), the words "constituted under section 87 above" and "constituted under section 88 above" shall cease to have effect; and
(c) after paragraph (fa) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(faa) references to the officers appointed members of a court-martial shall be construed as including references to persons who are members of a court-martial by virtue of paragraph (fa) above;".

72.—(1) Section 209(3B) (modifications of Act in its application to any area for which Standing Civilian Courts are established) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(aa) section 83 above shall have effect as if after subsection (1) there were inserted the following subsection—
(1A) Regulations under this section may provide for sections 76 to 76C of this Act to have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in relation to charges which may be tried by Standing Civilian Courts and which are brought against persons whom such courts may try.";

(3) For paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) section 103(1) above shall have effect as if the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (b)—
"(c) the hearing by courts-martial of appeals against findings and sentences of Standing Civilian Courts.";"

(4) In paragraph (c)—
(a) for "77, 79 and 80" there shall be substituted "to 76C"; and
(b) for the words from "consequential" to "Procedure" there shall be substituted the words "as may be specified by regulations under section 83 of this Act".

73. In section 211 (application of Act to reserve forces), in subsection (7), for the words "subsection (3) of section seventy-eight" there shall be substituted the words "section 76C(2)".

74. In section 225(1) (general provisions as to interpretation of Act)—
(a) in the definition of "appropriate superior authority" for the words from "has" to "and" there shall be substituted the words "means a person who may act as an appropriate superior authority by virtue of';
(b) after the definition of "corresponding rank" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"court administration officer" and "the court administration officer" have the meanings assigned to them by section 84A of this Act;";
(c) after the definition of "Her Majesty's air forces", "Her Majesty's military forces" and "Her Majesty's naval forces" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"the judge advocate" has the meaning assigned to it by section 84B(1) of this Act;";
(d) after the definition of "property" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"the prosecuting authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 83A(1) of this Act;"; and
(e) the definition of "Rules of Procedure" shall cease to have effect.

75. In Schedule 5A (powers of court on trial of civilian), in paragraphs 13(2)(a) and 14(6)(a), for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the word "rules".

Air Force Act 1955 (c. 19)

76. The Air Force Act 1955 shall be amended as follows.

77. In section 134 (persons not to be tried under Act for offences already disposed of), in subsection (1)(b), for the words "been found guilty on the charge" there shall be substituted the words "had a finding that the charge has been proved recorded against him".

78. Section 139 shall cease to have effect.

79. In section 143(1) (interpretation of Part II)—
(a) the definition of "convening officer" shall cease to have effect; and
(b) in the definition of "prescribed", for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the words "rules under section 103 of this Act".

80. In section 198 (general provisions as to evidence), in subsection (9), after the words "that Act" there shall be inserted the words ", or in any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act 1957, by virtue of section 64C of that Act,".

81. In section 209(3) (modifications of Act in relation to trial of civilians by courts-martial)—
(a) paragraph (d) shall cease to have effect;
(b) in paragraph (fa), the words "constituted under section 87 above" and "constituted under section 88 above" shall cease to have effect; and
(c) after paragraph (fa) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(faa) references to the officers appointed members of a court-martial shall be construed as including references to persons who are members of a court-martial by virtue of paragraph (fa) above;".

82.—(1) Section 209(3B) (modifications of Act in its application to any area for which Standing Civilian Courts are established) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(aa) section 83 above shall have effect as if after subsection(1) there were inserted the following subsection—
(1A) Regulations under this section may provide for sections 76 to 76C of this Act to have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in relation to charges which may be tried by Standing Civilian Courts and which are brought against persons whom such courts may try.";

(3) For paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) section 103(1) above shall have effect as if the following paragraph were inserted after paragraph (b)—
"(c) the hearing by courts-martial of appeals against findings and sentences of Standing Civilian Courts.";"

(4) In paragraph (c)—
(a) for "77, 79 and 80" there shall be substituted "to 76C"; and
(b) for the words from "consequential" to "Procedure" there shall be substituted the words "as may be specified by regulations under section 83 of this Act".

83. In section 210 (application of Act to reserve forces), in subsection (7), for the words "subsection (3) of section seventy-eight" there shall be substituted the words "section 76C(2)".

84. In section 223(1) (general provisions as to interpretation of Act)—
(a) in the definition of "appropriate superior authority" for the words from "has" to "and" there shall be substituted the words "means a person who may act as an appropriate superior authority by virtue of';
(b) after the definition of "corresponding rank" there shall be inserted the following definition—

"court administration officer" and "the court administration officer" have the meanings assigned to them by section 84A of this Act;";
(c) after the definition of "Her Majesty's air forces", "Her Majesty's military forces" and "Her Majesty's naval forces" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"the judge advocate", in relation to a court-martial, has the meaning assigned to it by section 84B(1) of this Act;";
(d) after the definition of "property" there shall be inserted the following definition
"the prosecuting authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 83A(1) of this Act;"; and
(e) the definition of "Rules of Procedure" shall cease to have effect.

85. In Schedule 5A (powers of court on trial of civilian), in paragraphs 13(2)(a) and 14(6)(a), for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the word "rules".

Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53)

86. The Naval Discipline Act 1957 shall be amended as follows.

87. In section 65(4) (contempt of court-martial by civilians), for the words "subsection (5) of section fifty" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G(9)".

88. In section 66(1) (record of proceedings of court-martial) for the words from "judge" to "it" there shall be substituted the words "court administration officer shall transmit the record of the proceedings".

89. In section 76 (restitution or compensation on conviction of larceny etc.)—
(a) in subsection (6)(a), the words from "by the officer" to the end shall cease to have effect; and
(b) in subsection (6)(b), for the words "section forty-nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".

90. In section 81 (place of imprisonment or detention)—
(a) in subsection (3)(c) for the words "officer who ordered the court-martial" there shall be substituted the words "court-martial by which he is tried"; and
(b) in subsection (3)(d) for the words "section forty-nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".

91. In section 85(2) (commencement of sentences) for the words "section forty-nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".

92. In section 103(1) (arrest under warrants of naval authorities) for the words from "subsection (4)" to the end there shall be substituted the words "regulations under section 52E(2)(a) above may exercise the powers of that person's commanding officer".

93. In section 129(1) (jurisdiction of civil courts) for the words "section forty-nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".

94. In section 135(1) (general provisions as to interpretation of Act)—
(a) after the definition of "civil prison" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"the commanding officer", in relation to a person charged with an offence, has the meaning assigned to it by section 52E(1) of this Act;";
(b) after the definition of "constable" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"court administration officer" and "the court administration officer" have the meanings assigned to them by section 53A of this Act;";
(c) after the definition of "Her Majesty's forces" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"the judge advocate", in relation to a court-martial, has the meaning assigned to it by section 53B(1) of this Act;"; and
(d) after the definition of "property" there shall be inserted the following definition—


"the prosecuting authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 52H(1) of this Act;".

95. In Schedule 1 (application of Act to marine forces), in paragraph 3, for the words "section forty—nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".

96. In Schedule 2 (application of Act to attached military and air forces)—
(a) in paragraph 6, for the words "section forty—nine" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D"; and
(b) in paragraph 7, for the words "section fifty" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G" and for the words "subsection (3)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (5)".

97. In Schedule 4 (application of Act to certain civilians), in paragraph 4—
(a) for the words "section forty-nine" in both places there shall be substituted the words "section 52D"; and
(b) the words from "and subsections" to "not apply" shall cease to have effect.

98. In Schedule 4A (powers of court on trial of civilian), in paragraphs 13(2)(a) and 14(6)(a), for the words "General Orders" there shall be substituted the word "rules".

Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80)

99. In section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (application to courts-martial of certain provisions relating to admissibility of evidence)—
(a) after the words "Air Force Act 1955" in the first place they appear there shall be inserted the words ", or section 64A(1) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957,"; and
(b) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the words "sections 10 and 11 above shall apply to proceedings before courts-martial".

Civil Evidence Act 1968 (c. 64)

100. In section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 (convictions as evidence in civil proceedings), in subsection (6), for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".

Civil Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (c. 36 (N.J.))

101. In section 7 of the Civil Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (convictions as evidence in civil proceedings), in subsection (6), for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".

Armed Forces Act 1976 (c. 52)

102. In section 6 of the Armed Forces Act 1976 (establishment of Standing Civilian Courts), in subsection (15), for the words "authority who directs the trial or trials" there shall be substituted the words "court administration officer notified by the prosecuting authority that the trial or trials are".

103.—(1) Schedule 3 to that Act (Standing Civilian Courts) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1 (interpretation)—
(a) after the definition of "the court" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
"court administration officer" has the same meaning as in the Army Act 1955;
"the court administration officer", in relation to a civilian, means the court administration officer notified by the prosecuting authority that the civilian is to be tried by the court and includes his successor or any person for the time being exercising his or his successor's functions;
"the higher authority", in relation to a civilian, means the higher authority who referred his case to the prosecuting authority;";
(b) the definition of "the directing officer" shall cease to have effect; and

(c) after the definition of "prescribed" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"the prosecuting authority"—
(a) in the case of a civilian to whom Part II of the Army Act 1955 applies, has the same meaning as in that Act;
(b) in the case of a civilian to whom Part II of the Air Force Act 1955 applies, has the same meaning as in that Act;".

(3) In paragraph 2 (sittings of the Standing Civilian Court)—
(a) in sub-paragraphs (1) and (3), for the word "directing" there shall be substituted the words "court administration"; and
(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the word "shall" there shall be substituted the word "may" and the words from "if so" to "direction" shall cease to have effect.

(4) In paragraph 4 (right of accused to elect trial by court-martial)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (4), for the words from "report" to the end there shall be substituted the words "shall refer the case to the prosecuting authority"; and
(b) sub-paragraph (5) shall cease to have effect.

(5) For paragraph 6 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

Unfitness to stand trial and insanity

6.—(1) Where on a trial by the court the question arises (whether at the instance of the defence or otherwise)—
(a) whether the accused is fit to stand trial, or
(b) where it appears to the court that the accused did the act or made the omission constituting the offence with which he is charged, whether he was insane at the time of the act or omission concerned,
the court shall adjourn the hearing and refer the case to the prosecuting authority.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a person is unfit to stand trial if he is under a disability such that apart from the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 it would constitute a bar to his being tried on indictment in England and Wales."

(6) Paragraph 7 shall cease to have effect.

(7) In paragraph 8 (re—trial where Standing Civilian Court ceases to be properly constituted)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words from the beginning to "directing" there shall be substituted the words "The court administration";
(b) in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), for the word "directing" there shall be substituted the words "court administration".

(8) In paragraph 12 (procedures etc. of Standing Civilian Court)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after the word "namely" there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) the prosecution of offences which may be tried by Standing Civilian Courts;";
(b) after sub-paragraph (4)(b) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
"(ba) proceedings preliminary to trials by Standing Civilian Courts;
(bb) the appointment of a magistrate for any preliminary proceedings;";
(c) in sub-paragraph (4)(f), after the word "trials" there shall be inserted the words "and any preliminary proceedings";
(d) in sub-paragraph (4)(h), the words "and the directing officer" shall cease to have effect; and
(e) sub-paragraph (4)(m) shall cease to have effect.

(9) In paragraph 18 (appeals to courts-martial)—
(a) in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), for the words "directing officer" there shall be substituted the words "higher authority";
(b) in sub-paragraph (4), for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the word "rules"; and
(c) in sub-paragraph (10), the words "or as judge advocate" shall cease to have effect.

(10) In paragraph 20 (review of findings and sentences of Standing Civilian Court), in sub-paragraph (9), for the words "directing officer" there shall be substituted the words "higher authority".

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)

104. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.

105. In section 67(12)(a), the definition of "court-martial" in section 82(1) and section 113(11)(a), for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".

106. In section 72(1) (meaning of certain expressions used in Part VII), in the definition of "proceedings"—
(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "or the Air Force Act 1955" there shall be substituted the words ", the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957"; and
(b) in paragraph (b)(i), the words from "or from" to "1957" shall cease to have effect.

107. In section 82(1) (meaning of certain expressions used in Part VIII), in the definition of "proceedings"—
(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "or the Air Force Act 1955" there shall be substituted the words ", the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957"; and
(b) in paragraph (b)(i), the words from "or from" to "1957" shall cease to have effect.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)

108. In section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (evidence before courts-martial etc.) for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".

109.—(1) Schedule 13 to that Act (evidence before courts-martial etc.) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1 (interpretation)—
(a) for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the word "rules";
(b) for the words "General Orders" there shall be substituted the word "rules"; and
(c) for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".

(3) In paragraph 4 (application of section 26 of the Act of 1988)—
(a) for the words "section 77" in both places they appear there shall be substituted the words "section 76B"; and
(b) for the words "section 49" there shall be substituted the words "section 52D".

(4) In paragraph 7 (forms of evidence and glossaries)—
(a) for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G";
(b) for the words "Rules of Procedure" there shall be substituted the word "rules"; and
(c) for the words "General Orders" there shall be substituted the word "rules".

Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.1. 1989 1341 (N.I. 12))

110. In Article 66(11)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (codes of practice — supplementary), for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33)

111. In section 39 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (power to apply sections 34 to 38 to armed forces), in subsection (2)(g), for the words "section 50" there shall be substituted the words "section 52G".'.—[Mr. Soames.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

FINDINGS OF UNFITNESS TO STAND TRIAL AND INSANITY

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 27, leave out lines 30 to 41 and insert—

'(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the court shall make one of the following orders in respect of the accused, namely—
(a) an admission order;
(b) a guardianship order;
(c) a supervision and treatment order; or
(d) an order discharging him absolutely,
as the court thinks most suitable in all the circumstances of the case.

(3) The court may not make an order under subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d) above if the offence to which the finding relates is an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law.

(4) The court shall not make a guardianship order or a supervision and treatment order unless it has power to do so by virtue of section 116C or section 116D below.

(5) An order under subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) above shall be treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the court may direct, and the appropriate mental health legislation shall apply accordingly with such modifications as may be prescribed.'.

No. 18, in page 27, line 42, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.—

No. 19, in page 27, line 45, at end insert—

'(1A) Where an admission order is made by a court-martial, the court may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, direct the accused to be treated as if an order restricting his discharge had been made under the appropriate mental health legislation, either without limit of time or (if a civil court would have been permitted to do so under the legislation concerned) during such period as may be specified in the direction.'.

No. 20, in page 28, line 3, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 7 and insert

`appropriate mental health legislation to apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed, in relation to admission orders as the legislation concerned applies in relation to hospital orders;'.

No. 21, in page 28, line 10, at end insert—

'(4) In this section "hospital", "hospital order" and "place of safety" have the same meanings as in the appropriate mental health legislation.'.

No. 22, in page 28, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 29 and insert—

'Guardianship orders

116C.—(1) In this Act "guardianship order" means an order placing the accused under the guardianship of—
(a) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, a local social services authority or such other person approved by a local social services authority as may be specified in the order;


(b) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Scotland, a local authority or such other person approved by a local authority as may be specified in the order;
(c) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Northern Ireland, a Board or an authorised HSS trust or such other person approved by a Board or an authorised HSS trust as may be specified in the order.

(2) In subsection (1) above—
authorised HSS trust" and "Board" have the same meanings as in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;
local authority" has the same meaning as in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984; and
local social services authority" has the same meaning as in the Mental Health Act 1983.

(3) A court-martial shall not make a guardianship order unless—
(a) the court is satisfied, on the written or oral evidence of two registered medical practitioners, that—
(i) the accused is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, severe mental impairment or mental impairment; and
(ii) the mental disorder is of a nature or degree which warrants his reception into guardianship; and
(b) the court is of the opinion, having regard to all the circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character and antecedents of the accused and the other available methods of dealing with him, that the most suitable method of disposing of the case is by means of a guardianship order.

(4) A court-martial shall not make a guardianship order unless it is also satisfied that the authority or other person intended to be specified in the order is willing to receive the accused into guardianship.

(5) A guardianship order shall specify the form or forms of mental disorder referred to in subsection (3)(a) above from which, upon the evidence taken into account under that subsection, the accused is found by the court to be suffering; and a guardianship order shall not be made unless the accused is described by each of the practitioners whose evidence is taken into account under that subsection as suffering from the same one of those forms of mental disorder, whether or not he is also described by either of them as suffering from another of those forms of mental disorder.

(6) The appropriate mental health legislation shall apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed, in relation to guardianship orders under this section as it applies to guardianship orders under the legislation concerned.

(7) In this section "mental disorder", "mental impairment", "psychopathic disorder" and "severe mental impairment" have the same meanings as in the Mental Health Act 1983.'.

No. 23, in page 29, line 3, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.

No. 24, in page 30, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 31 and insert—

'Provisions supplementary to section 115A to 116D

116E.—(1) In this section and sections 115A to 116D above—
the appropriate mental health legislation" means—

(a) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, the Mental Health Act 1983;
(b) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Scotland, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and Part VI of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;

(c) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Northern Ireland, the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;
duly approved" means
(a) approved for the purposes of section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act);
(b) approved for the purposes of section 20 or 39 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 by a Health Board as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act); or
(c) appointed for the purposes of Part II of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 by the Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland;
prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) For the purposes of the provisions of sections 115A, 116, 116C and 116D of this Act which permit a court to act on the written evidence of a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved, a report in writing purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved may, subject to subsection (3) below, be received in evidence without proof of the signature of the practitioner and without proof that he has the requisite qualifications or is duly approved; but the court may require the signatory of any such report to be called to give oral evidence.

(3) Where, in pursuance of a direction of the court, any such report is tendered in evidence otherwise than by or on behalf of the accused, then—
(a) if the accused is represented by counsel or a solicitor, a copy of the report shall be given to his counsel or solicitor;
(b) if the accused is not so represented, the substance of the report shall be disclosed to him; and
(c) the accused may require the signatory of the report to be called to give oral evidence, and evidence to rebut the evidence contained in the report may be called by the accused or on his behalf.

(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under sections 116A, 116B, 116C and 116D above, and orders under section 116D(2) above, shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'

No. 25, in page 31, line 9, at end insert—
'. In section 225(1) of the Army Act 1955 (general provisions as to interpretation)—

(a) after the definition of "active service" there shall be inserted the following definition
"admission order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116B(1) of this Act;";
(b) after the definition of "Governor" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"guardianship order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116C(1) of this Act;"; and
(c) after the definition of "stoppages" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"supervision and treatment order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116D(1) of this Act;".

In section 223(1) of the Air Force Act 1955 (general provisions as to interpretation)—

(a) after the definition of "active service" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"admission order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116B(1) of this Act;";


(b) after the definition of "Governor" there shall be inserted the following definition—

"guardianship order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116C(1) of this Act;"; and
(c) after the definition of "stoppages" there shall be inserted the following definition

"supervision and treatment order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 116D(1) of this Act;".'.

No. 26, in page 32, leave out lines 35 to 46 and insert—

'(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the court shall make one of the following orders in respect of the accused, namely—
(a) an admission order;
(b) a guardianship order;
(c) a supervision and treatment order; or
(d) an order discharging him absolutely,
as the court thinks most suitable in all the circumstances of the case.

(3) The court may not make an order under subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d) above if the offence to which the finding relates is an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law.

(4) The court shall not make a guardianship order or a supervision and treatment order unless it has power to do so by virtue of section 63C or section 63D below.

(5) An order under subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) above shall be treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the court may direct, and the appropriate mental health legislation shall apply accordingly with such modifications as may be prescribed.'.

No. 27, in page 32, line 47, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.

No. 28, in page 32, line 50, at end insert—
'(1A) Where an admission order is made by a court-martial, the court may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, direct the accused to be treated as if an order restricting his discharge had been made under the appropriate mental health legislation, either without limit of time or (if a civil court would have been permitted to do so under the legislation concerned) during such period as may be specified in the direction.'.

No. 29, in page 33, line 10, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 14 and insert
'appropriate mental health legislation to apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed, in relation to admission orders as the legislation concerned applies in relation to hospital orders;'.

No. 30, in page 33, line 17, at end insert—
'(4) In this section "hospital", "hospital order" and "place of safety" have the same meanings as in the appropriate mental health legislation.'.

No. 31, in page 33, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 34 and insert—

'Guardianship orders

63C.—(1) In this Act "guardianship order" means an order placing the accused under the guardianship of—
(a) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, a local social services authority or such other person approved by a local social services authority as may be specified in the order;
(b) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Scotland, a local authority or such other person approved by a local authority as may be specified in the order;
(c) in a case where the order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Northern Ireland, a Board or an authorised HSS trust or such other person approved by a Board or an authorised HSS trust as may be specified in the order.

(2) In subsection (I) above—
authorised HSS trust" and "Board" have the same meanings as in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;
local authority" has the same meaning as in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984; and
local social services authority" has the same meaning as in the Mental Health Act 1983.

(3) A court-martial shall not make a guardianship order unless—
(a) the court is satisfied, on the written or oral evidence of two registered medical practitioners, that—

(i) the accused is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, severe mental impairment or mental impairment; and
(ii) the mental disorder is of a nature or degree which warrants his reception into guardianship; and
(b) the court is of the opinion, having regard to all the circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character and antecedents of the accused and the other available methods of dealing with him, that the most suitable method of disposing of the case is by means of a guardianship order.

(4) A court-martial shall not make a guardianship order unless it is also satisfied that the authority or other person intended to be specified in the order is willing to receive the accused into guardianship.

(5) A guardianship order shall specify the form or forms of mental disorder referred to in subsection (3)(a) above from which, upon the evidence taken into account under that subsection, the accused is found by the court to be suffering; and a guardianship order shall not be made unless the accused is described by each of the practitioners whose evidence is taken into account under that subsection as suffering from the same one of those forms of mental disorder, whether or not he is also described by either of them as suffering from another of those forms of mental disorder.

(6) The appropriate mental health legislation shall apply, with such modifications as may be prescribed, in relation to guardianship orders under this section as it applies to guardianship orders under the legislation concerned.

(7) In this section "mental disorder", "mental impairment", "psychopathic disorder" and "severe mental impairment" have the same meanings as in the Mental Health Act 1983.'.

No. 32, in page 34, line 12, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.

No. 33, in page 35, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 36 and insert—

`Provisions supplementary to section 62A to 63D

63E.—(1) In this section and sections 62A to 63D above—
the appropriate mental health legislation" means—
(a) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, the Mental Health Act 1983;
(b) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Scotland, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and Part VI of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;
(c) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Northern Ireland, the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;

duly approved" means—

(a) approved for the purposes of section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act);


(b) approved for the purposes of section 20 or 39 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 by a Health Board as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act); or
(c) appointed for the purposes of Part II of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 by the Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland;
prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) For the purposes of the provisions of sections 62A, 63, 63C and 63D of this Act which permit a court to act on the written evidence of a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved, a report in writing purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved may, subject to subsection (3) below, be received in evidence without proof of the signature of the practitioner and without proof that he has the requisite qualifications or is duly approved; but the court may require the signatory of any such report to be called to give oral evidence.

(3) Where, in pursuance of a direction of the court, any such report is tendered in evidence otherwise than by or on behalf of the accused, then—
(a) if the accused is represented by counsel or a solicitor, a copy of the report shall be given to his counsel or solicitor;
(b) if the accused is not so represented, the substance of the report shall be disclosed to him; and
(c) the accused may require the signatory of the report to be called to give oral evidence, and evidence to rebut the evidence contained in the report may be called by the accused or on his behalf.

(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under sections 63A, 63B, 63C and 63D above, and orders under section 63D(2) above, shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'

No. 34, in page 36, line 17, at end insert—

`. In section 135(1) of the 1957 Act (general provisions as to interpretation)—
(a) before the definition of "aircraft" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"admission order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 63B(1) of this Act;";
(b) after the definition of "Governor" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"guardianship order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 63C(1) of this Act;"; and
(c) after the definition of "steals" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"supervision and treatment order" has the meaning assigned to it by section 63D(1) of this Act;".'.

No. 35, in page 36, line 33, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 14 on page 37 and insert

'make one of the following orders in respect of the appellant, namely—
(a) an admission order;
(b) a guardianship order;
(c) a supervision and treatment order; or
(d) an order discharging him absolutely,
as they think most suitable in all the circumstances of the case.

(3) The Appeal Court may not make an order under subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d) above if the offence to which the appeal relates is an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law.

(4) An order under subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) above shall be treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the Appeal Court may direct, and

the appropriate mental health legislation shall apply accordingly with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5) The provisions of, or made under, the relevant Service Act in relation to admission orders, guardianship orders and supervision and treatment orders shall apply to the Appeal Court as if—
(a) references to a court-martial were references to the Appeal Court;
(b) references to the accused were references to the appellant,
and with such other modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) The power of the Secretary of State under subsections (4) and (5) above to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

No. 36, in page 37, line 17, at end insert—

'. In section 22(4) of the 1968 Act (consequences where appeal under section 21 allowed), at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 23 below,".'.

No. 37, in page 37, line 30, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 14 on page 38 and insert—

`make one of the following orders in respect of the appellant, namely—
(a) an admission order;
(b) a guardianship order;
(c) a supervision and treatment order; or
(d) an order discharging him absolutely,
as they think most suitable in all the circumstances of the case.

(3) The Appeal Court may not make an order under subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d) above if the offence to which the appeal relates is an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law.

(4) An order under subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) above shall be treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the Appeal Court may direct, and the appropriate mental health legislation shall apply accordingly with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5) The provisions of, or made under, the relevant Service Act in relation to admission orders, guardianship orders and supervision and treatment orders shall apply to the Appeal Court as if—
(a) references to a court-martial were references to the Appeal Court;
(b) references to the accused were references to the appellant,
and with such other modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) The power of the Secretary of State under subsections (4) and (5) above to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

No. 38, in page 38, line 28, leave out from 'detained' to end of line 45 and insert

'pursuant to an admission order made by a court-martial, make an order for his continued detention;
(b) in any other case, make an order that the appellant be admitted for assessment, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, to such hospital as may be specified by the Secretary of State.

(3) An order under subsection (2) above shall be treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the Appeal Court may direct, and the appropriate mental health legislation shall apply accordingly with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The power of the Secretary of State under subsections (2)(b) and (3) above to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) In this section "hospital" and "mental disorder" have the same meanings as in the appropriate mental health legislation.".'.

No. 39, in page 39, leave out lines 14 to 20.

No. 40, in page 39, line 28, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 41 and insert—
'(a) before the definition of "the Air Force Act" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"admission order" has the same meaning as in the relevant Service Act;";
(b) after the definition of "appellant" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"the appropriate mental health legislation" means
(a) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in England and Wales, the Mental Health Act 1983;
(b) in a case where an order is treated as if it had been made by a civil court in Scotland, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and Part VI of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;
(c) in a case where an order is treated as iP it had been made by a civil court in Northern Ireland, the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;";
(c) after the definition of "army court-martial" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"civil court" has the same meaning as in the relevant Service Act;";
(d) after the definition of "court-martial;" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"duly approved" means—
(a) approved for the purposes of section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act);
(b) approved for the purposes of section 20 or 39 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 by a Health Board as having special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder (within the meaning of that Act); or
(c) appointed for the purposes of Part II of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 by the Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland; ";
(e) after the definition of "enactment" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"guardianship order" has the same meaning as in the relevant Service Act;";
(f) at the end there shall be inserted the following definition
"supervision and treatment order" has the same meaning as in the relevant Service Act." '.

No. 41, in page 39, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 41 and insert—
' "(2A) For the purposes of the provisions of sections 16, 23 and 23A of this Act which permit the Appeal Court to act on the written evidence of a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved, a report in writing purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner or a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved may, subject to subsection (2B) below, be received in evidence without proof of the signature of the practitioner and without proof that he has the requisite qualifications or is duly approved; but the Appeal Court may require the signatory of any such report to be called to give oral evidence.

(2B) Where, in pursuance of a direction of the Appeal Court, any such report is tendered in evidence otherwise than by or on behalf of the appellant, then—
(a) if the appellant is represented by counsel or a solicitor, a copy of the report shall be given to his counsel or solicitor;
(b) if the appellant is not so represented, the substance of the report shall be disclosed to him; and
(c) the appellant may require the signatory of the report to be called to give oral evidence, and evidence to rebut the evidence contained in the report may be called by the appellant or on his behalf." ',—[Mr.Soames.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 9

FINGERPRINTING OF CERTAIN OFFENDERS

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 4, line 37, leave out `50' and insert '52G'.

No. 2, in page 4, line 39, leave out '49' and insert —[Mr.Soames.]

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 3

TAKING OF SAMPLES FROM CERTAIN OFFENDERS

'.—(1) A service policeman may, for the purpose of recording information, take a sample to which this section applies from a person without his consent if that person has been convicted of an offence in service disciplinary proceedings.

(2) This section applies to a sample of hair (other than pubic hair) or to a swab taken from a person's mouth.

(3) The power under subsection (1) above may be exercised in relation to a person convicted of an offence only if—
(a) he has not had a sample to which this section applies taken from him since his conviction; or
(b) where he has had such a sample taken from him, the sample has proved insufficient.

(4) The power under subsection (1) above may not be exercised after the end of the period of three months beginning—
(a) in a case falling within subsection (3)(a) above, with the date of the conviction;
(b) in a case falling within subsection (3)(b) above, with the date on which a service policeman is informed of the fact that the sample has proved insufficient.

(5) A service policeman may use reasonable force, if necessary, in exercising the power under subsection (1) above.

(6) A sample of hair may be taken either by cutting hairs or by plucking hairs with their roots so long as no more are plucked than are reasonably considered to be necessary for a sufficient sample.

(7) In this section—
service disciplinary proceedings" and "service policeman" have the same meanings as in section 9 above; and
sufficient" and "insufficient", in relation to a sample, means sufficient or insufficient (in point of quantity or quality) for the purpose of enabling information to be produced by the means of analysis used or to be used in relation to the sample.

(8) This section is without prejudice to any power to take samples under any other enactment or under any rule of law.'.—[Mr. Soames.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 80, in title, line 5, leave out `fingerprinting of and insert
`taking of fingerprints and samples from'.

Dr. Godman: I want to voice some concerns that I have about the new clause and to seek guidance from the Minister. The new clause begins by stating:
A service policeman may, for the purpose of recording information, take a sample".
In the Bill, a service policeman is defined as
a member of the Royal Navy Regulating Branch, the Royal Marines Police, the Royal Military Police, the Royal Air Force Police or the staff of the Royal Air Force Provost Marshal.
I can only speak with some experience, albeit limited, of the Royal Military police. Presumably, under the new clause, a service policeman could be a lance-corporal. Is that the case? Why is the clause so much out of kilter with extant legislation in Scotland and in England and Wales?
In part II of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, clause 28 allows for a police constable, presumably the equivalent of a lance-corporal in the corps of the Royal Military police, to take a sample. But subsection (4) states:
A constable may, with the authority of an officer of a rank no lower than inspector, take from the person—
(a) from the hair of an external part of the body".
From that point clause 28 of the 1993 Act and new clause 3 are almost identical. Why does the new clause not have that limiting subsection? Why has the Minister chosen to allow any member of a military police establishment to take such action against a prisoner? Surely if it is good enough for the civil police in Scotland to require an inspector to give permission, the same should hold for the armed forces.
In a crude, rough way, the rank of inspector is equivalent to an Army major. Therefore, why not insert a subsection into new clause 3 which allows only a lance corporal in the military police, say, to take such a body sample once he or she has the approval of the officer commanding the unit, or someone of equal rank?
In terms of human rights, the new clause leaves a lot to be desired when compared with the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act. At the most appropriate moment, the new clause should be changed in the way that I have suggested.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) says that the new clause is out of kilter, but I have to tell him that it is one of the most kiltered new clauses that I have ever met. I want to reassure him that the rank of the service policeman concerned is completely immaterial. All service policemen, given the authority and status of their position and the special responsibilities that they carry, will be able to undertake these tasks. There is no problem with regard

to the law being the same in Scotland, but I shall investigate further the matter that he has raised and write to him in greater detail.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is not surprising that the Minister does not have encyclopaedic knowledge of Scottish general law, but the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has raised an interesting question of principle—namely the level at which a power of this kind should be able to be exercised. If, as I understand it, it is a principle to try and approximate as far as possible the law which pertains to the armed services with the law which pertains in civilian life, there is clearly a substantial issue of principle as to whether the person who is lowest in the command structure in the military police can exercise a power which, in the civilian sector, can be exercised only by someone of a substantially higher rank. I therefore hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the important point of principle which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow has isolated.

Mr. Soames: I assure the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that I do not hold the kind of views about my learned Friend that the hon. Gentleman does. That is a supremely helpful and constructive intervention. I have no idea what the answer to the point is. I shall investigate it and write to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. I am sure that they have a valid point, and we will clarify it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

REVIEW OF FINDINGS AND SENTENCES OF COURTS-MARTIAL

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 6, line 30, leave out `court-martial'.—[Mr. Soames.]

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.)

Schedule 4

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE REVIEW OF FINDINGS AND SENTENCE

Amendments made:No. 42, in page 43, line 28, at end insert—

`. Section 108 (power of accused to present petition against finding or sentence at any time after finding or sentence) shall cease to have effect.

. For section 112 (approval required for death sentences) there shall be substituted the following section—

Review of proceedings of courts-martial Approval required for death sentences

112.—(1) A sentence of death passed by a court-martial shall not be carried out until it has been reviewed under section 113 of this Act and has not been quashed or replaced by another sentence on the review.

(2) A sentence of death passed by a court-martial shall not be carried out in a colony unless it is also approved by the Governor of the colony." '.

No. 43, in page 44, line 41, at end insert—
'(aa) revoke an order made by the court under section 120A(1) of this Act;'.

No. 44, in page 45, line 9, leave out from 'section' to `for' and insert

`113A (power of reviewing authority to authorise retrial)—
(a) in subsection (1),'

No. 45, in page 45, line 11, at end insert `; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the words "Defence Council" there shall be substituted the words "reviewing authority".'

No. 46, in page 45, line 11, at end insert—

`. For section 115 of the Army Act 1955 (review of summary findings and awards) there shall be substituted the following section—

Review of summary findings and awards

115.—(1) This section applies where a charge has been dealt with summarily and a finding has been recorded that the charge has been proved.

(2) The accused may at any time request a review of the finding or any punishment awarded (or both); and where he does so, the finding or punishment (or both) shall be reviewed.

(3) The finding or any punishment awarded (or both) may be reviewed at any other time.

(4) A review under this section shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Queen's Regulations.

(5) A review under this section may be carried out by—
(a) the Defence Council;
(b) any military, naval or air-force officer superior in command to the officer who dealt summarily with the charge;
(c) a general officer or brigadier appointed by the Defence Council to carry out the review or any class of review which includes the review.

(6) Section 113AA of this Act shall apply to a review under this section by an authority mentioned in subsection (5) above as it applies to a review under section 113 of this Act by the reviewing authority.

(7) In the application of section 113AA to reviews under this section, that section shall have effect as if—
(a) references to the court-martial were references to the officer who dealt summarily with the charge;
(b) references to a finding of guilt were references to a finding that the charge has been proved;
(c) references to a sentence passed were references to a punishment awarded; and
(d) subsections (5)(aa) and (6) were omitted."

. For section 115 of the Air Force Act 1955 (review of summary findings and awards) there shall be substituted the following section—

Review of summary findings and awards

115.—(1) This section applies where a charge has been dealt with summarily and a finding has been recorded that the charge has been proved.

(2) The accused may at any time request a review of the finding or any punishment awarded (or both); and where he does so, the finding or punishment (or both) shall be reviewed.

(3) The finding or any punishment awarded (or both) may be reviewed at any other time.

(4) A review under this section shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Queen's Regulations.

(5) A review under this section may be carried out by—
(a) the Defence Council;

(b) any air-force, naval or military officer superior in command to the officer who dealt summarily with the charge;
(c) an air officer appointed by the Defence Council to carry out the review or any class of review which includes the review.

(6) Section 113AA of this Act shall apply to a review under this section by an authority mentioned in subsection (5) above as it applies to a review under section 113 of this Act by the reviewing authority.

(7) In the application of section 113AA to reviews under this section, that section shall have effect as if—
(a) references to the court-martial were references to the officer who dealt summarily with the charge;
(b) references to a finding of guilt were references to a finding that the charge has been proved;
(c) references to a sentence passed were references to a punishment awarded; and
(d) subsections (5)(aa) and (6) were omitted.'''.

No. 47, in page 45, leave out lines 12 and 13.

No. 48, in page 45, leave out lines 22 to 24.

No. 49, in page 45, line 28, leave out 'under subsection (3) above'.

No. 50, in page 45, line 36, leave out 'under subsection (3) above'.

No. 51, in page 46, line 3, leave out 'General Orders' and insert 'rules'.

No. 52, in page 46, line 34, at end insert—
'(aa) revoke an order made by the court under section 89A(1) of this Act;'.

No. 53, in page 47, leave out lines 3 to 9. No. 54, in page 47, line 10, leave out '(1)%

No. 55, in page 47, line 11, after 'Council"' insert
`in both places where they appear'.

No. 56, in page 47, line 11, at end insert—
'. After section 71A there shall be inserted the following section—

`Review of summary findings and awards

71B.—(1) This section applies where on a summary trial the accused has been found guilty of any offence.

(2) The accused may at any time request a review of the finding or any sentence awarded (or both); and where he does so, the finding or sentence (or both) shall be reviewed.

(3) The finding or any sentence awarded (or both) may be reviewed at any other time.

(4) A review under this section shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Queen's Regulations.

(5) A review under this section may be carried out by—
(a) the Defence Council;
(b) any naval officer superior in command to the officer who tried the charge summarily;
(c) a flag officer appointed by the Defence Council to carry out the review or any class of review which includes the review.

(6) Section 71 of this Act shall apply to a review under this section by an authority mentioned in subsection (5) above as it applies to a review under section 70 of this Act by the reviewing authority.

(7) In the application of section 71 to reviews under this section, that section shall have effect as if—
(a) references to the court-martial were references to the officer before whom the summary trial took place; and
(b) subsections (5)(aa) and (6) were omitted."'.—[Mr. Soames.]

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

REDRESS OF COMPLAINTS

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 9, line 10, after `Act' insert
',ask for a review under section 115 of this Act'.

No. 5, in page 10, line 15, after 'Act' insert
`, ask for a review under section 115 of this Act'.

No. 6, in page 11, line 21, after 'Act' insert
',ask for a review under section 70A of this Act'.—[Mr. Soames.]

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

EQUAL TREATMENT: GREAT BRITAIN

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 17, line 13, leave out from 'the' to second 'the' in line 15 and insert

`period of service during which the claim arose ended more than nine months before'.—[Mr. Soames.]

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

SERVICE PAY AND CONDITIONS

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 18, line 45, leave out from 'the' to second 'the' in line 47 and insert

`period of service during which the claim arose ended more than nine months before'.—[Mr. Soames.]

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

OTHER COMPLAINTS: GREAT BRITAIN

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 19, line 23, leave out from 'Section' to `(application' in line 25 and insert

`192 of the Employment Rights Act 1996'.

No. 10, in page 19, line 27, leave out `(3)' and insert
`(4)'.

No. 11, in page 19, line 35, leave out `(4)' and insert
`(5)'.

No. 12, in page 19, line 37, leave out `(4)' and insert
`(5)'.

No. 13, in page 19, line 38, leave out `(2)' and insert
`(3)'.

No. 14, in page 19, line 38, leave out `(3)' and insert
`(4)'.

No. 15, in page 19, line 43, leave out `(3)' and insert `(4)'.

No. 16, in page 20, line 1, leave out `(7)' and insert `(6)'.—[Mr. Soames.]

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 24 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

GREENWICH HOSPITAL

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 22, line 43, at beginning insert
`Where he is satisfied that the objectives set out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) of this section are met,'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 4—Grants for preservation of Royal Naval College site.

Mr. Raynsford: Clause 27 governs the use of the site currently occupied by the royal naval college in Greenwich. As hon. Members know, the subject has been raised in the House on several occasions during the past year or so.
Last summer, the Government decided to put this magnificent complex of buildings on the market following their decision to close the college. The subsequent appearance of some of the country's finest architectural masterpieces in the pages of an estate agent's catalogue rightly provoked a national outcry. It says a great deal for the curious values of the present Government that they could ever have felt it appropriate to flog off such an important part of our national heritage in that way. Fortunately, common sense has finally prevailed: even the Secretary of State for Defence now seems to recognise that this was a privatisation too far. For that reason, we are now considering a clause that has undergone a substantial transformation since it was first debated on Second Reading in December.
That transformation owes a great deal to two main influences. First, there was the weight of public opinion in Greenwich and throughout the country—public opinion that was outraged at the Government's treatment of some of our country's finest buildings, and the risk of their falling into unsuitable hands. Secondly, there was the timely intervention of members of the Select Committee, who visited Greenwich not just once but twice to look around the college complex and take evidence on site. As the Committee's report makes clear, they were convinced that the Bill as originally drafted failed to provide adequate guarantees as to the future occupancy or uses of the site.
The Bill has now been amended. Clause 27(2) requires the Secretary of State to have regard to three main concerns. First, he must have regard to
the importance of preserving for the benefit of the nation the historic buildings and monuments
on the site, and of maintaining its "architectural integrity". Secondly, he must have regard to
the desirability of securing reasonable public access".
Thirdly, he must have regard to
the desirability of preventing any use
that is "out of keeping" with the "unique character and history" of the site.
So far so good. Those are important safeguards that were not previously in the Bill, and they represent a major step forward as well as a triumph for common sense. Clause 27(3), however, remains unaltered. It allows the Secretary of State to grant a lease on any or all the Greenwich buildings for a period of up to 150 years to


any person whom he considers suitable. There is no link between the provisions in subsection (3)—which, in effect, prompted the public outcry—and the new subsection that introduces the safeguards to which I referred.
The purpose of my amendment is simple—to establish a clear link between the Secretary of State's obligation to have regard to those wider national and heritage issues and interests, and his power to grant a lease. The amendment makes it a precondition of the grant of any lease for the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the objectives set out in subsection (2) have been met. It means that, before granting a lease, he will have to be convinced that the outcome will be the preservation of the historic buildings and architectural integrity of the site, the maintenance of reasonable public access and the prevention of any inappropriate use.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is clearly in keeping with their own current intentions, now that they have backed away from their ill-conceived attempt to dispose of the buildings on the open market. Subsection (2) is a clear reflection of their admission that the previous approach was wrong, and that there must now be explicit safeguards in the Bill to protect this incomparable site.
While we hear the assurances that the Government have been giving, Ministers cannot be surprised if we remain a little sceptical, given their previous record. We welcome the inclusion of subsection (2), but many hon. Members will want to be absolutely sure that the criteria spelled out in that subsection are effective. That is the purpose of the amendment. Without it, there can be no absolute guarantee that, having had regard to those criteria, the current Secretary of State—or, indeed, any future Secretary of State—will not subsequently offer the buildings on a 150-year lease to an organisation that does not entirely satisfy the objectives set out in subsection (2).
I am not saying that that is what the Government currently intend to do. I understand that negotiations are proceeding with the university of Greenwich and the national maritime museum, both of which are widely recognised as appropriate and suitable users of the site. I hope that those negotiations bear fruit. Having said that, I must add that we are considering legislation that could remain on the statute book for 100 year or more. The legislation that the Bill replaces dates back to 1869, and what we are considering this afternoon could well remain in force for a similar or longer period.
We cannot anticipate the circumstances that may arise at a future date, when the national maritime museum or, indeed, the university of Greenwich may have moved to pastures new. In such circumstances, without the link that my amendment seeks to introduce, it would still be open to a future Secretary of State to grant a lease to another organisation that did not entirely satisfy the criteria in subsection (2).
In that event, the Secretary of State could plead that, having had regard to the criteria, he had nevertheless concluded that the lease that he proposed to grant was the best that he could envisage in the circumstances, even if it did not satisfy those criteria. Future generations will not thank us if we leave any opportunity open for such an outcome, which could involve these magnificent buildings passing into hands that are not appropriate or suitable.
The experience of the past few months should surely have taught the Government a salutary lesson—that we cannot and must not allow the possibility of some of our country's most magnificent buildings ever again to be offered for sale in an estate agent's catalogue.
Considerable progress has been made since the firm of Knight, Frank and Rutley advertised the Royal Naval college in its glossy brochure last autumn. Not only have the Government been chastened by the experience, but the estate agents have not emerged unscathed. Mr. Rutley appears to have been a casualty of the engagement. Our responsibility is to make sure that the legislation is watertight and that the safeguards will bite to prevent any possible repeat of that demeaning and deplorable episode. My amendment provides the necessary safeguard, and I trust that the Committee will accept it.

6 pm

Mr. Key: The Select Committee on Defence looked at this matter in great detail, and when we visited Greenwich we were convinced that we should press the Ministry of Defence. I understand the hon. Gentleman's cause and I appreciate the way that he has put it, but I am convinced that his amendment is unnecessary. The Government amendments went considerably further than I and other members of the Select Committee had hoped for in our wildest dreams. It was good to see the Government responding so swiftly.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) went rather over the top, because the college was never offered for sale: it was a lease that was on offer. That matters, and I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get away with promoting the idea that the Government ever sought to sell the freehold of those buildings. I had some responsibility for our heritage while I was in the Department of National Heritage, and from my experience I can say that the solution is good. I am confident and the people of Greenwich can be confident about that.
I pay tribute to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for Defence who took a great personal interest in this matter. Of course lessons have been learnt: the Minister said that in Committee. I hope that we can put this episode behind us and move forward to ensure that a proper and fitting use is found for those wonderful world heritage site buildings.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I support the amendment. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has campaigned to preserve the royal naval college and related buildings for the nation, and deserves to be widely applauded in Parliament, in London and throughout the country. The royal naval college is an incomparable part of our nation's maritime history and naval traditions, and I am pleased at the drafting of clause 27. However, the strict stipulations that the amendment seeks to introduce are necessary and wise. Clause 27(3) states:
It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to grant a lease of any of the land to which this section applies, with its appurtenances, to any person appearing to him to be suitable for a term not exceeding 150 years.
Potentially, that is a long term and "appearing … to be suitable" is not the kind of strictly defined criterion that should be demanded for the preservation of the nation's maritime history or of buildings of this kind.
I welcome the interesting new clause, in that it makes possible the granting of moneys from Parliament for the repair and maintenance of the land and buildings on the royal naval college site. I hope that that will make it possible for an appropriate educational function to be fulfilled. My desire has always been for a tri-service cadet college at Greenwich in that fine historic setting. There is an educational tradition at the college, first, as a staff college for the Royal Navy and then as a successor to the former joint services staff college at Latimer.
Many of us had hoped that it would be the new tri-service staff college but that opportunity was not taken. I earnestly request the Ministry of Defence to look at the possibility of establishing such an officer cadet college, perhaps in combination with the university of Greenwich, so that the Bill's ethos of ensuring that our armed forces maintain the best standards of discipline and respect for the traditions of the services can be maintained. We should also seek to provide education in the newest technologies, sciences and engineering that are required for a career in the profession of arms in all three services. That should be provided within a fine, historic, maritime setting as befits an island nation with so many naval traditions.
The late Sir Winston Churchill said that we make buildings but that they make us. To inculcate those qualities in officer cadets who will form the backbone of their respective services and who will go from Greenwich to professional training at Cranwell, Sandhurst or Dartmouth is laudable, and it is made possible by the new clause. Nevertheless, I urge the Minister, with his characteristic magnanimity and generosity, to accept the entirely sensible amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Greenwich who has campaigned so long and hard and so effectively for the preservation of the royal naval college, Greenwich.

Dr. Reid: I should like to raise two matters. First, the Government have nearly got it right, and they have done so by that most unusual of expedients in the Ministry of Defence—consulting and listening to people. That process has extended to the Armed Forces Bill and threatens to overcome the Ministry of Defence, a Department that I have never seen as being in the vanguard of open government. The Minister has taken to it with the zeal of a convert, and long may it continue.
Secondly, the achievement of the safeguards that are required to preserve the Royal Naval college for the nation is much to the credit of all parties, many hon. Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). It would be the icing on the cake if, as hon. Members have said, the Minister accepted the amendment or gave assurances that substantially give effect to its spirit, because that would save a Division.
The criteria to which the Secretary of State must have regard under clause 27(2) are architectural integrity, public access and the history and heritage of the building. They must be the necessary prerequisites when he is considering the use of the powers that are vested in him under subsection (3), which contains the power to sell or lease the land for an extended period. If he agreed to do that expeditiously it would save much time, we would not need to divide on the amendment, and we would have one

of those rare occasions on which hon. Members could go away happy and ready to praise not just a Minister, but a Minister in the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Soames: The speech by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) was almost seductive and I had to think hard to resist his blandishments.
I shall try to deal with the issues that have been raised. As the Committee knows, the clause will allow the Secretary of State to grant a lease to a non-Government body in respect of the royal naval college, Greenwich. Section 7 of the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869 restricts the use of college buildings to occupation by the Royal Navy, Government Departments, or organisations that are associated with seafaring.
The clause was extensively amended by the Select Committee, to whose members I pay tribute for their admirable work, and by Government amendments that were tabled there. The principal amendment was intended to ensure that there should be appropriate acknowledgement in the Bill of the interests and considerations to which the Secretary of State in his capacity as trustee of Greenwich hospital should have regard in reaching a decision on a lease in respect of the royal naval college. Those include maintaining the absolute architectural integrity of the site, preserving it for the nation's benefit, the desirability of public access and ensuring suitable use of the site. For those reasons, much of what the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said was ungracious and unfair.
Other important amendments added more detailed provision in relation to sub-leases because of the proposal to grant the head lease of the royal naval college to a trust, which would, in its turn, grant sub-leases or licences to others. Thus, it is made clear that only the Secretary of State can authorise the granting of the sub-lease or assignment of the lease on terms that he has agreed.
It is important to remember that the Secretary of State is holding the land for the benefit of a charity: Greenwich hospital. It would be unfair to that charity if he could determine future occupation without having regard to the charity's interests. As amended by the Select Committee, the clause seeks to achieve a proper balance between the charity's private interests, which the Secretary of State, as trustee, must seek to safeguard, and the wider public interest.
I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). His idea of a tri-service college is interesting. As he knows, Greenwich simply does not have the capacity to accommodate the tri-service college as it forms up, but I was interested in his proposal and I would be grateful if he would send me more details of his scheme, although we would not be able to do it at Greenwich.

Sir Michael Grylls: As my hon. Friend has raised the question of the tri-service college in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), will he think again about the proposal temporarily to coelocate the staff college to Bracknell? The information that I have is that the staff college in Camberley in my constituency is concerned about that and that Bracknell will be an unattractive temporary solution. I realise that something must be done while the main new tri-service college is


built, but there is a feeling that Bracknell's hutted accommodation will not be attractive, especially as the college depends so much on foreign students, who, whatever one may think, depend on the kudos of coming to Camberley, which has a world reputation. It could practically be done at Camberley. Will he reconsider that?

Mr. Soames: No, I will not reconsider. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter with me—he has already done so by letter—but the tri-service staff college will form up initially at Bracknell. It may not be as smart as it has been and for a couple of years it may not be as comfortable, but the reason why so many of our foreign friends choose to come to the staff college of all three services and the tri-service staff college is not because of the beautiful surroundings, but because the training is undoubtedly the best in the world. The tri-service staff college will continue that formidable record of training. I am familiar with the views of the people at the staff college at Camberley. Those were not the views that were presented to me when I was there last week.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend that I am not harping back to the dispute, or the argument, about staff college training, but referring specifically to the possibility of a tri-service officer cadet college at Greenwich—perhaps operated in co-operation with the university of Greenwich—in relation to the use of those fine buildings for an educational purpose, especially as the professional training at the three individual service academies of Cranwell, Sandhurst and Dartmouth is so truncated that officer cadets do not receive enough grounding in the basic disciplines and military sciences that are required for a long-term career?

Mr. Soames: I was aware of what my hon. Friend was suggesting and that there is no suggestion that we can do that at Greenwich, but I was saying that it is an interesting proposition that has not been advanced before. I would be happy if he would let me have details of his idea and I will consider whether I can take it forward.
I am grateful for the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) whose knowledge of this matter cannot be gainsaid and who had considerable experience of and responsibility for part of the national heritage when he was Minister. It is right that there is a proper debate on Greenwich; such a debate was needed. After all, as the hon. Member for Greenwich rightly says and as we all agree—no one disagrees—the collection of buildings there is one of, if not the most, important in the United Kingdom.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Greenwich is so sceptical, but I suppose that his commercial snobbery is getting the better of him. He is unkind to poor Mr. Rutley. I am also surprised that the hon. Gentleman is sceptical as he said, halfway through his speech, that he believes that the Government's approach is a triumph of common sense, with which I entirely agree.
I sympathise with the concerns that the hon. Gentleman is expressing in the amendment. We took considerable care to table in the Select Committee an amendment that is now included in clause 27, which ensures that, as far as possible, the wider interests of heritage and access are reflected in future decisions on the Royal Naval college.
It is important to remember that the Secretary of State is holding the land as trustee. The clause seeks to achieve a proper balance between the private interests of a charity,

which the Secretary of State must seek to safeguard, and the wider public interest. It lists considerations to which he must have regard in exercising discretion, but they cannot be conditions to be satisfied as the amendment seeks.
On a more technical point, although the clause requires the Secretary of State to have regard to various matters, it does not contain any objectives. Thus, the amendment is technically incompatible with the clause and would not work. For those reasons, I must ask the Committee to reject the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Raynsford: I am disappointed with the Minister's response, which revealed a characteristic inability to grapple with the key issue: although the safeguards are spelled out in clause 27(2), there is no direct link between subsection(2) and the powers under subsection(3) to grant a lease. That is why we believe that the amendment is necessary.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for his support for the amendment's principle. I regret that the Government do not recognise the need to do this. I trust that their assurances will be honoured. We will examine whether the particular commitments that have been given are met before any leases are granted. The other place may wish to reconsider the issue; it has certainly taken considerable interest in Greenwich's future. In order, however, to not detain the Committee further—hon. Members want to raise many other matters of concern—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 4

GRANTS FOR PRESERVATION OF ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE SITE

`. After section 31 of the National Heritage Act 1983 there shall be inserted the following section—

The Royal Naval College Grants for preservation of Royal Naval College site

31A.—(1) The Secretary of State may out of money provided by Parliament make grants towards expenditure in connection with the repair or maintenance of—

(a) the land and buildings on the site known as the Royal Naval College; or
(b) any object of historical interest situated on that land or in those buildings.

(2) Grants under this section may be paid to such persons and on such conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate." '.—[Mr. Soames.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clauses 28 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 47, leave out lines 27 to 32.

No. 58, in page 47, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert—

`Suspension of sentences

.—(1) In section 120 of each of the 1955 Acts (suspension of sentences of imprisonment and detention)—
(a) in subsection (2), for the words from the beginning to "officer" there shall be substituted the "On passing such a sentence, the court";
(b) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(3) On the review of a sentence which is not for the time being suspended, the reviewing authority may order that the balance of the sentence be suspended."; and
(c) in subsection (5)(c), for the words from "neither" to "said powers" there shall be substituted the words "the court does not exercise the powers conferred by paragraph (a) above".

(2) In section 118 (commencement of sentences of imprisonment and detention), in the proviso to subsection (2), for the words "the confirming officer" there shall be substituted the words "a court-martial".'.

No. 59, in page 47, line 36, at end insert—

`Remission of sentences

. In section 122 of each of the 1955 Acts (Imprisonment and Detention Rules), in subsection (1)(e) (rules about remission of part of sentences), the words "for good conduct and industry" shall cease to have effect.

. In section 82 of the 1957 Act (Naval Detention Quarters Rules), in subsection (1)(d) (rules about remission of part of sentences), the words "for good conduct and industry" shall cease to have effect.'

No. 60, in page 47, line 36, at end insert—

'Reviews

. In Schedule 5A to each of the 1955 Acts (powers of court on trial of civilians), in paragraph 13(3), for the words "section 108" in both places they appear there shall be substituted the words "section 113".

. In Schedule 4A to the 1957 Act (powers of court on trial of civilians), in paragraph 13(3), for the words "section 70(2)" there shall be substituted the words "section 70(1)".

. In Schedule 3 to the Armed Forces Act 1976 (Standing Civilian Courts)—
(a) in paragraph 19 (petitions for reviews), the words from "but" to "period" shall cease to have effect; and
(b) in paragraph 20 (reviews of findings and sentences), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), for the words from "a confirming" to "section 110" there shall be substituted the words "an authority carrying out a review under section 115".'.

No. 61, in page 47, leave out lines 38 to 40.

No. 62, in page 47, line 41, leave out 'that' and insert `the 1957'.

No. 63, in page 48, line 14, at end insert—

`Abolition of confirmation

. In section 82(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (meaning of references to conviction before a Service court in Part VIII), for the words from "references" (in the second place it appears) to "and" there shall be substituted the words "references to a finding of guilty which is, or falls to be treated as, the finding of the court; and".'.

. In Article 70(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (meaning of references to conviction before a Service court in Part IX), for the words from "references" (in the second place it appears) to the end there shall be substituted the words "references to a finding of guilty which is, or falls to be treated as, the finding of the court."'.—[Mr. Soames.]

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 48, line 16, at end insert—

`PART

REPEALS RELATING TO CHANGES TO PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OFFENCES UNDER SERVICES ACTS

1933 c. 6.
Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act 1933.
In section 4(4)(b) the words from "and may" to "courts martial".


1955 c. 18.
Army Act 1955.
Sections 77 to 80.




Section 82(3).




Section 84.




Section 85(3).




Sections 86 to 90.




In section 91(1), the words from "and the convening officer" to the end.




In section 93, in subsection (1), the words "other than an exempted person" and "judge advocate", and subsection (1A).




Section 95(4).




In section 96(5), the words from "or on" to "finding".




Sections 104 to 106.




Section 139.




In section 143(1), the definition of "convening officer".




In section 209(3), paragraph (d) and, in paragraph (fa), the words "constituted under section 87 above" and "constituted under section 88 above".




In section 225(1), the definition of "Rules of Procedure".


1955 c. 19.
Air Force Act 1955.
Sections 77 to 80.




Section 82(3).




Section 84.




Section 85(3).




Sections 86 to 90.




In section 91(1), the words from "and the convening officer" to the end.




In section 93, in subsection (1), the words "other than an exempted person" and "judge advocate", and subsection (1A).




Section 95(4).




In section 96(5), the words from "or on" to "finding".




Sections 104 to 106.




Section 139.




In section 143(1), the definition of "convening officer".

No. 65, in page 48, line 22, column 3, after '"and"' insert

'(in the first place in which it appears)'.

No. 66, in page 48, line 26, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.

No. 67, in page 48, leave out line 31.

No. 68, in page 48, line 32, column 3, leave out `subsection (2)'.

No. 69, in page 49, line 51, column 3, after -and '"insert"'

'(in the first place it appears)'.

No. 70, in page 49, line 55, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 50.

No. 71, in page 50, leave out line 7.

No. 72, in page 50, line 8, column 3, leave out `subsection (2)'.

No. 73, in page 51, line 16, at end insert—


'1957 c. 53.
Naval Discipline Act 1957.
In Schedule 4A, in paragraph 4(12), the words "confirming officer or", in paragraph 5(2)(b), the words "confirmation, revision or" and, in paragraph 15, in subparagraph (4), the words "confirmation" and "or revision", and, in subparagraphs (5), (6) and (7), the words "confirmation" and "revision".'.

No. 74, in page 51, line 46, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 122(1)(e), the words "for good conduct and industry".'.

No. 75, in page 52, line 4, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 122(1)(e), the words "for good conduct and industry".'.

No. 76, in page 52, line 6, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 82(1)(d), the words "for good conduct and industry".'.

No. 77, in page 52, line 13, column 3, leave out from `Service,"' to end of line 16.

No. 78, in page 52, line 42, column 3, at end insert—



'In Schedule 3, in paragraph 19, the words from "but" to "period".'.

No. 79, in page 52, line 44, at end insert—


`1976 c. 74.
Race Relations Act 1976.
In section 54(2), the words "or to a complaint to which section 75(8) applies".'.


—[Mr Soames.]

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand of the Bill.

New clause 2

POSTPONEMENT OF SENTENCES OF COURTS-MARTIAL

`.—(1) After section 120 of the Army Act 1955 there shall be inserted the following section—

Postponement of sentences

120A.—(1) On passing any sentence a court-martial may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.

(2) On reviewing a sentence under section 113 of this Act, the reviewing authority may—
(a) if the sentence has not had effect, order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order;


(b) if the sentence has had effect, order that the sentence shall cease to have effect on the making of the order until the end of the period specified in the order.

(3) On exercising any power under section 113AA of this Act to pass or substitute a sentence, the reviewing authority may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.

(4) The Defence Council or any officer authorised by them may terminate the period specified in an order under this section or extend such a period for a further period specified by them.

(5) On the termination of such a period the sentence in respect of which the order in question was made shall have effect or (in the case of an order under subsection (2)(b) above) resume effect.

(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent section 118(1) of this Act from applying in relation to a military sentence of imprisonment or detention."

(2) After section 120 of the Air Force Act 1955 there shall be inserted the following section—

Postponement of sentences

120A.—(1) On passing any sentence a court-martial may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.

(2) On reviewing a sentence under section 113 of this Act, the reviewing authority may—
(a) if the sentence has not had effect, order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order;
(b) if the sentence has had effect, order that the sentence shall cease to have effect on the making of the order until the end of the period specified in the order.

(3) On exercising any power under section 113AA of this Act to pass or substitute a sentence, the reviewing authority may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.

(4) The Defence Council or any officer authorised by them may terminate the period specified in an order under this section or extend such a period for a further period specified by them.

(5) On the termination of such a period the sentence in respect of which the order in question was made shall have effect or (in the case of an order under subsection (2)(b) above) resume effect.

(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent section 118(1) of this Act from applying in relation to an air—force sentence of imprisonment or detention."

(3) After section 89 of the 1957 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

Postponement of sentences Postponement of sentences

89A.—(1) On passing any sentence a court-martial may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.

(2) On reviewing a sentence under section 70 of this Act, the reviewing authority may—
(a) if the sentence has not had effect, order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order;
(b) if the sentence has had effect, order that the sentence shall cease to have effect on the making of the order until the end of the period specified in the order.

(3) On exercising any power under section 71 of this Act to pass or substitute a sentence, the reviewing authority may order that the sentence shall not have effect until the end of the period specified in the order.

(4) The Defence Council or any officer authorised by them may terminate the period specified in an order under this section or extend such a period for a further period specified by them.

(5) On the termination of such a period the sentence in respect of which the order in question was made shall have effect or (in the case of an order under subsection (2)(b) above) resume effect.

(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent section 85(1) of this Act from applying in relation to a sentence of imprisonment or detention awarded under this Act." '.—[Mr. Soames.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

PARDON FOR GREAT WAR SOLDIERS

'.—(1) Any person (an "eligible person") who in the Great War of 1914 to 1919—
(a) served in the British Empire Forces,
(b) was convicted by a court martial of one or more of the offences set out in subsection (2) below or any of these offences together with any other offences, and
(c) was judicially executed following such conviction
shall be eligible for a pardon in accordance with the provisions of this section in respect of any offence referred to in subsection (2) below.

(2) The offences referred to in subsection (1) above are cowardice, desertion, attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and striking a superior officer.

(3) An eligible person shall be pardoned of any offence referred to in subsection (2) above if the Secretary of State makes an order to that effect in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(4) Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall, in respect of each eligible person, either—
(i) make an order under subsection (3) above; or
(ii) lay a report before both Houses of Parliament explaining the reasons for his decision not to make such an order.

(5) A pardon under this section shall—
(a) have similar effect to a pardon granted in exercise of the Royal Prerogative,
(b) be deemed to remove or, as the case may be, nullify any degradations and penalties imposed in connection with the relevant offences, and
(c) not have any effect on any existing financial rights or obligations of any dependant or of the Secretary of State.

(6) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and a copy of any order so made shall be laid before each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Mackinlay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 82, in title, line 8, after 'forces', insert
`to make provision for pardoning soldiers convicted of certain offences during the Great War of 1914 to 1919'.

Mr. Mackinlay: My new clause would require the Secretary of State for Defence to issue pardons in respect of just over 300 soldiers of the British empire forces who


were executed in the first world war having been found guilty of offences ranging from cowardice, desertion, sleeping at their post, disobedience, throwing away arms and hitting a superior officer. I believe that pardons are long overdue, and it is my submission that that is the view of the overwhelming majority of the people of the United Kingdom.
If my new clause were incorporated into the Bill, and the Secretary of State took a different view, he would be required to come to Parliament to demonstrate why he considered it inappropriate in each case to issue a pardon. I believe—I am confident about this—that, if there were to be an objective examination of the cases, in a matter of minutes people would conclude that a grave injustice had been done to those men all those years ago.
Why do I say that? All 300 of those men were denied the right of natural justice. They were not given an opportunity to prepare a defence. In many cases, they did not have proper advocates, and none of them was given the opportunity to collect evidence, particularly medical evidence, in support of their defence. Above all, each and every one of those soldiers was denied the opportunity to appeal against the sentence of death. I believe that that is contrary to the rules of natural justice.
For 75 years, it suited the British establishment to keep the documents of the field courts martial under lock and key. They were suppressed at the Public Record Office. When they became available for public inspection by scholars or relatives, it was obvious that there had been a travesty of justice. The British establishment acknowledges that things were bad, but argues that it is too late to provide a remedy. That is not good enough. The documents demand that, as a country, we recognise the terrible wrong done to those men. We need to put the record straight.
The documents show that the decision to find those men guilty was perverse in many cases because there was documentation showing that many of them had been hospitalised because they had been sick and traumatised and were forcibly returned to the trenches.
I am thinking particularly of Harry Farr of the West Yorkshire regiment. I had the privilege of meeting his widow, Gertie Batstone—she married again—in her 99th year. Throughout her long life, that wonderful woman sought recognition for her husband as a brave soldier: a volunteer who endured the trauma of the trenches not just for months but for two years or more. After being shelled, he simply could not go on. He was hospitalised, but was forced to return to the front, and when he was told to go forward, he broke away from his escorts trembling. The "trembling" is documented in the field court martial records. Despite that, that poor man and many like him had to face a firing squad at dawn.
It is time we put the record straight. We spend millions of pounds every year teaching history to our schoolchildren and students, and we need to write that history with clarity and precision, including those s which are uncomfortable for us—this is one of them. We can write the history and put the record straight by granting pardons to those men.
I have written to the Prime Minister about this on a number of occasions, and, with characteristic courtesy, he expressed sympathy, but declined to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen that there should be pardons or that

action should be taken in the House. I regret that. His argument was that it is a matter of history, and that we cannot apply our standards to those of 75 years ago.
The principles of English law, that people should have a fair trial, be able to prepare a defence and be able to appeal against sentence, were not invented after 1918. They are the basic principles of English law since long before, and were denied to those men in our century.
It is nonsense to say that it is merely a matter of history. I am not seeking pardons for soldiers executed in the Crimean or Napoleonic wars. These events occurred in our century. Every November, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and many of us go to the Cenotaph and other war memorials to pay our respects to those who died in wars in this century.
I hope that it will be taken in the correct spirit when I say that Her Majesty the Queen Mother still goes to the Cenotaph, and she is of this century. She mourns the death of many of her contemporaries, as well as her late brother who died in the first world war. As long as there are first world war veterans alive—there are still a few thousand—as well as their widows, and sons and daughters, it is relevant to us. It is not too late to provide a remedy.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to reflect on this. Service men and women and those who have endured hardship and suffered from shell shock in subsequent conflicts share my view that it would be a matter of pride for our generation and the House if we were to conclude this matter by granting pardons. It might mean that we could draw a final line across a century that has been full of trauma and great distress. Some of those events were triggered in the summer of 1914 and, in some senses, are still with us today in s of central Europe—hopefully, they will conclude soon. It is time we recognised that we have the capacity and the duty to respect those men as brave British soldiers who did their best in the most difficult circumstances.
Lord Moran, famous as the doctor of Winston Churchill—the Minister's grandfather—was a physician in the first world war. In his memoirs, he referred to the bank of courage that each man and woman has. He said that one draws on that bank of courage, and that eventually none is left. He said that the men who suffered combat stress had often demonstrated immense skill and courage and endured terrible hardships, including sleep deprivation and lack of food, and that eventually they could not go on.
We must recognise that it is now appropriate for the Government and the House of Commons to say that those were brave British soldiers and should be recognised as such. Those who would have been their dependants require it, and, albeit late in the evening of their lives, their comrades in arms who still survive from the first world war will derive great satisfaction from knowing that at last the nation has exonerated their colleagues.
A couple of weeks ago, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who fought at Passchendaele, passed away. I greatly regret that he could not have been here tonight to hear me and the rest of the debate. I remember a relatively recent conversation with him in which he spoke about the horrors of Passchendaele, and said that he supported my campaign to have the pardons granted. He said that it went to the heart of his Christian belief in compassion and forgiveness, but at the word "forgiveness" he paused and added, "If forgiveness is appropriate." Those were brave


men who had done their best and who did nothing wrong. It is time that the Members of the House of Commons joined together in honouring them.
I do not know whether it is true that Conservative Members may be subject to some kind of Whip, but I still hope that tonight they will feel that this is where we exercise our consciences, and that the Committee can act as a fulcrum and focal point for the nation's will—and I hope that they will support me in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Wilkinson: We all admire the immense compassion of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and greatly respect his motivation and the feeling with which he spoke. None of us can fully comprehend the horrors of service in the great war; it is deeply imprinted on the conscience of the nation.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that the House of Commons can retroactively pass such a provision, however noble the motivation. Each generation of service men and women has to carry out its service of duty to the Crown according to the service Acts that appertain at the time. That is why we are debating the Armed Forces Bill today, to bring service discipline into line with contemporary morality and the ethos of the nation as a whole.
How, in all equity, can we exonerate those men, many of whom were probably wrongly convicted, but some of whom may have been rightly convicted? How can we do that without a full appreciation of the circumstances—and without a full realisation that examples had to be made, and perhaps on occasion martyrs had to be made, to ensure the discipline and cohesion of whole units?
How can we single out that group of service men for exoneration, when, through the generations and the centuries, many service men have been executed for apparent dereliction of duty? Sailors in Nelson's Navy were keel-hauled or whipped to death with cats-o'-nine-tails. That does not look very fine or appropriate today, according to our codes of discipline and behaviour, but it was necessary for Nelson's Navy, to secure the victories it won. If we remember the mutinies that took place in the French army in 1917, we may conclude that on occasion such measures may have been unpleasant necessities.
I marvel that, in the circumstances, only 300 men had to be executed. So many will have been shell-shocked and traumatised beyond all rational behaviour, but according to the exigencies of the service of the day, their commanders had no choice if their units were to be effective and lives were to be saved. Much as I admire the motivation of the hon. Member for Thurrock, I urge the Committee not to accept his new clause.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who has a personal connection with 1915 and Gallipoli—my grandfather was involved—I am extremely angry about the speech that we have just heard by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). There is a simple response to what he said about retrospection. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)

mentioned Lord Houghton, and when the retrospection arguments were put to him, Lord Houghton said one thing: "I was at Passchendaele."

Mr. Paul Flynn: Even according to the exigencies of the time, the decisions to kill those 300 men were savage. We are not talking about something that happened long ago in history. My father fought in that war, and it was a cruel and bitter experience that left him a broken man for the rest of his life. Two things that were available in great quantities during the first world war were alcohol and tobacco, and it is not insignificant that my father died of lung cancer at the age of 43.
When we consider the 300 deaths, we know that other armies did not find it necessary to kill their own soldiers, and they had equally heroic war records. It is right that we in the Committee should try to do a little, even if it is only symbolic, to undo the terrible injustices that were committed in the name of the House and of the sovereign of the day. We should support my hon. Friend's new clause and do a little to absolve the House and our country of the guilt of those 300 deaths.

Dr. Godman: We have heard a disgraceful speech by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). My late father, who was awarded the military medal for what was defined as "bravery in the field" on the western front in 1917, always deeply deplored the actions of the appallingly arrogant officers who sent deeply traumatised young men to their deaths. Let us all vote for the new clause.

Mr. Tony Banks: I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was lacking in compassion, and I was quite surprised that he should have made such a speech. A few yards from here, there is an equestrian statue of Lord Haig, who was one of those who sent millions of young men to their deaths, often needlessly. Such people were honoured for what they did, yet they are the sort of people who should be arraigned before the High Court of Parliament, even today. Remembering what was done, the hon. Gentleman should show some compassion and support the new clause.

Dr. Reid: I have sat through many defence debates, and have had many discussions with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and I have great respect for him and for his integrity, but he may come to regret what may have been loose phraseology in his speech today. We are talking about something that happened this century, not about Trafalgar in 1805. The idea that serving British soldiers should be shot "pour encourager les autres" is anathema to the British tradition, and it should stay that way.
I recall that, in a small museum in the Falkland islands, I spoke to people who contrasted the relationship between the British officers and men who fought together in extremely difficult circumstances with the relationship between the Argentine officers and their men, who had suffered so much throughout the battle. Conscripts were forced into the freezing sea for 15 hours at a time in the sights of their commanding officers' guns "pour encourager les autres", and starved for days in foxholes while their officers had chocolate and brandy. If that was


ever the British way, surely it is not the British way now. We must remember what these people were going through.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I have the highest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but will he place clearly on the record whether he believes that the picture that he paints of the Argentines in the Falklands can also be applied to the British officer corps during the first world war? If that is his view, there really is a profound divide across the Committee on this matter.

Dr. Reid: It was not I who wrote the book "The Donkeys". It was a former member of the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported—indeed, a former Defence Minister. He wrote the book based on the perhaps trivial but penetrating quip that the soldiers in the British armed forces in the first world war were "lions led by donkeys". In one afternoon—before tea time—on the first day of the assault on the Somme, 50,000 British soldiers died. That is equivalent to the entire front line of our armed services today. Such killing went on day after day, month after month.
Someone made mistakes, but that is not the issue. Mistakes are made in war, and I have the highest regard for the military traditions of the officer corps of the British armed forces. What my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was speaking about with passion were not the mistakes that can be made even by the brightest general in the fog of war, but injustice.
Injustice within living memory should not stay unremedied. Hon. Members, particularly those who support the armed forces, must realise that the bond that binds the United Kingdom as a nation is the contract between the present and the past. Dead those men may be, but the sons, the daughters and the grandchildren of those who received a medal in the first world war are still proud to display it. The stigma of an execution and the accusations levelled against a grandfather must be borne by the families of those who were executed.
This is a piece of enabling legislation. It does not require us to pardon if we cannot do so. It obliges us, after three quarters of a century, to repay the debt of honour that this House surely owes to some of those men who fought and died—some, tragically, by the bullets of their own armed forces—to save this country. If we do not discharge that debt of honour now for the past, we can hardly demand it of our service men and women in the future.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the points made in the debate. I recognise the strength of feeling that this issue raises in the House and with members of the public.
It is impossible not to have the deepest sympathy for those men and their families. The war was fought in appalling conditions and many of those involved endured terrible suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made an important speech. His uncle fought at Gallipoli, was wounded seven times in the first world war, and was awarded the croix de guerre.
One should not seek to encourage the introduction of a competitive aspect to the debate. Every family represented in the Committee will have had those who, in previous

generations, suffered the most appalling losses and gross tragedies. The Somme, Passchendaele and Vimy ridge all left a trail of destruction and sadness, that will never be obliterated from the history of this country.
Between August 1914 and March 1919, more than 141,000 officers and soldiers were convicted by courts martial for a wide range of offences, of whom 346 were executed. The remainder received sentences ranging from life imprisonment and hard labour at one end of the spectrum, to fines and stoppages of pay at the other.
The new clause does not seek to obtain pardons for all those executed, and I freely acknowledge that. It excludes the 40 service men sentenced to death for mutiny or murder. The vast majority of executions were for desertions, but soldiers were also sentenced for cowardice, quitting a post, disobedience, striking an officer, casting away arms and sleeping at a post. They included men drawn from Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the West Indies, Nigeria, Egypt, the then Gold Coast and China.
Of the 346 who suffered death, 91 were already under suspended sentences. Of those, 40 had been previously sentenced to death for desertion or other offences. One soldier had been sentenced to death on two previous occasions for desertion and, in nine cases, the accused were under two or more suspended sentences.
I do not accept the view that these men were denied a fair trial in accordance with the rules of natural justice. There is sufficient information available to show that the courts martial were properly convened and conducted, and that the decisions of the courts were referred to a higher authority for confirmation in the correct way. There is no evidence that the convictions were unsound or that the accused soldiers were treated unfairly by the standards prevailing at the time. I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock understands that point.
There are no grounds for considering a posthumous pardon where there is evidence to justify the court's findings of guilty and where the court had passed a sentence which was lawful and within its jurisdiction. It is not sufficient to argue that pardons should be granted merely on the grounds that those sentenced to death did not have their sentences mitigated or remitted. There was an alternative punishment to the death penalty, and a majority of those soldiers sentenced to death by courts martial during the period had their sentences commuted.
6.45 pm
Clearly there may well have been cases in which a modern court would not have convicted the accused soldier. Medical evidence as to the state of mind of the individual soldier—whether the offence was desertion, murder or mutiny—may be crucial in a modern court. That evidence is not available from the files, although I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock about the book by Lord Moran and the "bank of courage". Lord Moran was the first doctor to recognise the very serious problems of stress and other disturbances in battle.
I recognise that, with the passage of time, attitudes may change, but I am not convinced that legislation for pardons is the right way to reflect the fact that some people might now disagree with the laws and procedures in force at the time under different circumstances. The files of 89 per cent. of the cases where sentence of death


was commuted have not survived. This is unfortunate, since, in isolation, the comments of the confirming officers from divisional and corps commanders upwards to the commander-in-chief in the 11 per cent. of cases where sentence was confirmed, may appear to be harsh. Apart from the desire to set an example—not always spelt out in court martial records—it is clear that an important factor in confirmation was whether the actions of the accused were deliberate.
The rules that applied during the first world war differ from those now governing the conduct of courts martial. However, these soldiers were convicted by a properly constituted court, according to the laws and procedures of the land, of an offence punishable by the imposition of the death penalty. That we do things differently today cannot alter that fact, uncomfortable as it might be for many of us, including the hon. Member for Thurrock. He has waged a good and honourable campaign for those men, and I know that he will not accept that.
This is an issue that does not lend itself to easy solutions, and the debate tonight—although heated—has been restrained and dignified. Perhaps the initial reaction of many of us is to be sympathetic to the sensible campaign of the hon. Member for Thurrock. However, as I have sought to explain, his solution does not seem to the Government to be the most appropriate one, and I must, with regret, ask the Committee to reject the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 203.

Division No. 124]
[6.48 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Denham, John


Barnes, Harry
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Etherington, Bill


Betts, Clive
Fatchett, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fisher, Mark


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fraser, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Byers, Stephen
Garrett, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Bruce


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Gerrard, Neil


Chidgey, David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gordon, Mildred


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coffey, Ann
Harvey, Nick


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corston, Jean
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Darling, Alistair
Hoyle, Doug


Davidson, Ian
Ingram, Adam





Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Janner, Greville
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jowell, Tessa
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Rendel, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Loyden, Eddie
Salmond, Alex


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Clare


Maclennan, Robert
Simpson, Alan


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Madden, Max
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John


Maxton, John
Straw, Jack



Timms, Stephen


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dennis


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tyler, Paul


Milburn, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Miller, Andrew
Wallace, James


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wareing, Robert N


Mullin, Chris
Watson, Mike


Murphy, Paul
Wicks, Malcolm


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wray, Jimmy


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)



Olner, Bill
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pickthall, Colin
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Pike, Peter L
 Mr. Dennis Skinner.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Amess, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arbuthnot, James
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Ashdown, Fit Hon Paddy
Dover, Den


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Beresford, Sir Paul
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Booth, Hartley
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bowis, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evennett, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Faber, David


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Bright, Sir Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fishburn, Dudley


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forman, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
French, Douglas


Carrington, Matthew
Gale, Roger


Carttiss, Michael
Garnier, Edward


Cash, William
Gill, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Coe, Sebastian
Grylls, Sir Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Congdon, David
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Harris, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Haselhurst, Sir Alan






Hawkins, Nick
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hawksley, Warren
Rathbone, Tim


Heald, Oliver
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Richards, Rod


Hendry, Charles
Riddtek, Graham


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Horam, John
Robathan, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jack, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Key, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kirkhope, Timothy
Soames, Nicholas


Kirkwood, Archy
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stephen, Michael


Legg, Barry
Streeter, Gary


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sweeney, Walter


Lidington, David
Sykes, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lord, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Thomason, Roy


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Madel, Sir David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Malone, Gerald
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mans, Keith
Tredinnick, David


Marlow, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Mates, Michael
Walden, George


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Waller, Gary


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Ward, John


Merchant, Piers
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mills, Iain
Watts, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wells, Bowen


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Whitney, Ray


Nelson, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Willetts, David


Norris, Steve
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ottaway, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Paice, James
Yeo, Tim


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Patten, Rt Hon John



Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Pawsey, James
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Pickles, Eric

Question accourdingly negatived.

New clause 7

PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW: GIBRALTAR

', After section 207 of the Army Act 1995 there shall be insered the following section—

"(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 207 above, any person who is subject to military law by virtue of section 205(1)(a) to (j) of this Act and who is, whether temporarily or not, attached to the Gibraltar Regiment, shall for the duration of that attachment be subject to the discipline of the Commanding Officer of that Regiment.

(2) In this section, 'The Gibraltar Regiment' means the Regiment raised under the law of Gibraltar".'.—[Mr. Colvin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7 pm

Mr. Michael Colvin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
After the seriousness and the passion of the previous debate, hon. Members may feel that the matter to which new clause 7 refers is of little consequence. However, it is important to hon. Members who take an interest in Gibraltar and to the people of the Rock and it must be resolved. The issue relates to the powers of command of officers in the Gibraltar Regiment—specifically, their powers to discipline British soldiers who are on secondment to the Gibraltar Regiment.
I shall be brief, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak to the next new clause. I think that it is important to give the House some background information about the Gibraltar Regiment which, following the rundown of British troops stationed in Gibraltar, is now the only resident battalion on the Rock. Its primary role is to oversee the security of the territory and its military installations, but it also has administrative responsibilities and ceremonial duties.
The regiment has its roots in the Gibraltar volunteer corps of the first world war, which was spontaneously formed by the people of Gibraltar. It developed directly from the Gibraltar defence force—a territorial unit of volunteers, which was raised in April 1939. The unit later trained national service men and became the Gibraltar Regiment, with its own commanding officer, in 1958.
The Gibraltar Regiment appears in the Army List as an integral part of the British Army. It is funded and trained by the Ministry of Defence to the same standard as any British infantry regiment. Its officers hold Governor's commissions and are trained on a par with United Kingdom officers who hold Queen's commissions. A number of the officers have served, and continue to serve, in attachments to United Kingdom regiments and at Army headquarters. Some served recently with North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and United Nations forces in the former Yugoslavia.
Inspecting officers consider the training, standard and efficiency of the Gibraltar Regiment to be as high as equivalent United Kingdom regiments. That is also the view of the Defence Committee, which visited the Rock recently, and Ministers who have inspected the force. The regiment conducts training in the United Kingdom every year and during that time United Kingdom regiments take over its duties in Gibraltar.
Ever since the Gibraltar defence force was raised in 1939, soldiers from United Kingdom regiments and corps have been seconded or attached to the unit. However, in 1990 it was discovered that the commanding officer of the Gibraltar Regiment has no powers of command over personnel from United Kingdom regiments or corps who are attached or seconded to that regiment. The present position is resented and I believe that it is prejudicial to good military discipline. For example, a warrant officer who was attached to the Gibraltar Regiment was returned to the United Kingdom because it was not possible to discipline him in Gibraltar.
The anomaly has been patched up by appointing, in parallel with the commanding officer of the Gibraltar Regiment, an officer of the United Kingdom forces who


is attached to the regiment or who serves in British forces headquarters. He acts as commanding officer for disciplinary purposes for United Kingdom soldiers who are attached to the regiment. That highly unsatisfactory stop-gap arrangement belittles the position of the regiment's commanding officer as it divides his command into two categories of soldiers: those over whom he can exercise full authority and those over whom he has no disciplinary powers. Notwithstanding that fact, the two categories are equally subject to the Army Act 1955. Obviously, it is not a sound way of exercising command in any British regiment.
The Defence Committee visited the Rock last October, when the matter was drawn to our attention not only by the Gibraltar Regiment but by the commander of British forces and by the Speaker of the House of Assembly, the Hon. Colonel Bob Peliza, who is the honorary colonel of the Gibraltar Regiment. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, drawing his attention to the fact that the commanding officer of the Gibraltar Regiment does not have that power of command and that any British officer who is seconded to it cannot be disciplined by that regiment and must be either dealt with by the commander of British forces in Gibraltar or flown back to the United Kingdom for disciplinary action.
My hon. Friend replied to my letter, as did the Secretary of State for Defence, who acknowledged the existing anomaly. I wish to put on record my hon. Friend's response:
As you say, the Commanding Officer of the Gibraltar Regiment at present has no formal disciplinary powers over a soldier of the British Army seconded to it. The MOD's legal advisers are in the process of determining the most efficient legislative means to rectify this situation. I can assure you that this is proceeding as a matter of priority but the case of the Gibraltar Regiment is inextricably linked to wider legal questions concerning powers of command. These are complex issues of considerable importance which are likely to take some time to resolve.
The letter is dated 30 November last year. The issue has been outstanding since 1990 and, although it may be linked inextricably to other questions, the learned legal advisers should by now have found some legal formula to resolve the problem. If it is not resolved in this legislation, it will probably be five years before it is considered again. That is a good reason for setting the ball rolling this evening with new clause 7.
If the substance of the new clause is accepted, it will end an anomaly that has been detrimental to good order and military discipline in a regiment of Her Majesty's forces for five years. If we do nothing, it will continue to have that effect for another five years. I believe that we have a responsibility to put the matter right once and for all. That is the wish of the Army commanders who are directly responsible for the discipline and the proficiency of the Gibraltar Regiment, such as the commander of the British forces in Gibraltar and the director of infantry. Incidentally, it is also the view of Army Legal Services, which has urged action on that essentially purely legal technicality for five years.
My hon. Friend the Minister is a man of honour and I know that he will keep his word. He has said that he is dealing with the problem as a matter of urgency and I trust that this evening he will either support the new clause or

give a firm undertaking that the Government will bring forward their own amendments in another place to address that long-standing difficulty.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful for the chance to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for our exchange of correspondence. I hope that he accepts that I replied in good faith, and I am happy to elaborate on my comments now.
The new clause seeks to place members of the United Kingdom forces who are attached to the Gibraltar Regiment under the command of the regiment's commanding officer for disciplinary purposes. That may seem logical at first sight, but to accept the new clause would run counter to the established practice of not allowing non-United Kingdom officers to have disciplinary powers over British troops—I know that my hon. Friend understands that definition.
I should explain that the commanding officer of the Gibraltar Regiment could be either a British officer or an officer of the regiment. In the latter case, the commanding officer would hold a Governor's commission rather than a Queen's commission. The current practice is that when the commanding officer is a member of the United Kingdom Regular forces, he has command over members of the UK Regular forces who are attached to the regiment, as well as over members of the colonial force. However, when the commanding officer is a member of the colonial force, disciplinary command over UK Regular Army personnel is vested in an officer on the staff of the headquarters in Gibraltar who holds a Regular Army land forces commission.
We want that practice to continue so that members of the UK Regular forces are under the disciplinary control of other members of the Regular forces, which will prevent them from potentially facing trial by a court martial composed of members of the colonial force or facing summary disposal by a person who is not a holder of the Queen's commission.
In acknowledging the espousal by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside of an issue that I know is dear to many people in Gibraltar, I am bound to tell him, I am afraid, that his new clause is unacceptable to the Government. However, the Government are actively considering the wider question of the status of the Gibraltar Regiment. If, as a result of that consideration, it is decided to alter that status and to make the regiment part of the UK Regular forces, disciplinary matters such as the issue that prompted my hon. Friend's new clause will fall into line.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be persuaded to withdraw his new clause. If not, I must ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Colvin: In the light of what my hon. Friend the Minister said, which has opened up a completely fresh debate about the future status of the Gibraltar Regiment, which I trust that the House will not embark on today, I shall withdraw the motion.
I ask my hon. Friend to proceed with caution down the path that he has embarked upon and to engage in the widest possible consultation—not only in Gibraltar, but in this country—about the possible changed status of the Gibraltar Regiment. I do not think that such changes


should be embarked upon without full consultation and without taking into account the views of the people of Gibraltar.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 1

SEXUAL CONDUCT TO PREJUDICE OF GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE

'.—(1) After section 69 of each of the 1955 Acts and after section 39 of the 1957 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

Sexual conduct to prejudice of good order and discipline

. (1) Sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, shall not constitute an offence under any provision of this Act unless that conduct—
(a) is prejudicial, or may be prejudicial, to good order and discipline; or
(b) undermines, or tends to undermine, command relationships; or
(c) involves the use of rank or position to obtain sexual favours or to coerce or encourage another person or persons to take part in sexual activity; or
(d) constitutes a civil offence.

(2) No person who is subject to military law shall be subject to any investigation, disciplinary proceedings or discharge solely on the ground of his or her sexual orientation, whether that person has a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or lesbian orientation.".

(2) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows—
(a) In section 146 (extension of Sexual Offences Act 1967 to the armed forces and merchant navy) subsection (4) is repealed; and
(b) In section 147 (homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland) subsection (3) is
repealed.'.

. (1) Sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, shall not constitute an offence under any provision of this Act unless that conduct—
(a) is prejudicial, or may be prejudicial, to good order and discipline; or
(b) undermines, or tends to undermine, command relationships; or
(c) involves the use of rank or position to obtain sexual favours or to coerce or encourage another person or persons to take part in sexual activity; or
(d) constitutes a civil offence.

(2) No person who is subject to military law shall be subject to any investigation, disciplinary proceedings or discharge solely on the ground of his or her sexual orientation, whether that person has a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or lesbian orientation.".

(2) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows—
(a) In section 146 (extension of Sexual Offences Act 1967 to the armed forces and merchant navy) subsection (4) is repealed; and
(b) In section 147 (homosexuality on merchant ships and in the armed forces: Northern Ireland) subsection (3) is repealed.'—[Mrs. Currie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
A few moments ago, the House was expressing its concern about dead soldiers. Now it is time to express our concern about the welfare of living soldiers, men and women who are serving in the armed forces right now. New clause 1 has two main elements. Part of the new clause spells out a proposed new code of conduct. It would apply to all inappropriate sexual behaviour, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It would protect women as well as men. It would protect young people, and it would protect those in junior ranks who might be at risk of sexual harassment. It would make it clear to heterosexuals as well as to lesbians and to gay men that no inappropriate behaviour would be tolerated.
The other part of the proposed new clause provides that the armed forces shall not discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation. The supporters of the new clause want to make it absolutely clear that we disapprove profoundly of irresponsible behaviour—by whomever, and whatever their sexual orientation might be. We would prefer to see each case dealt with on its merits or demerits, on the details of the case as presented.
The ban against homosexuals is the only blanket ban that the armed forces currently operate. Heterosexual misconduct, drug taking, alcoholism, bullying and even serious criminal convictions in the civil courts are treated as discretionary disciplinary matters. It is our view, therefore, that the blanket ban is based on prejudice, pure and simple, and as such it is offensive, impractical and expensive.
7.15 pm
All discrimination is inefficient—which is one reason why I, as a Conservative, object to it. But this discrimination, in particular, costs the taxpayer a great deal of money. It has been worked out that each investigation takes approximately 30 working days, and longer in the case of officers. The costs of basic training, including salary and administration, have been estimated at £30,000, and training costs for officers who are dismissed are substantially higher. Specialised training costs are, of course, much higher. Recently, for example, four Nimrod pilots and navigators were discharged, and the cost of replacing them must be absolutely astronomical. Hundreds of trained men and women are discharged, yet we are told that the MOD is short of money.
What type of people are being discharged under the ban? They are hardly ruffians or criminals. They are, in fact, the type of serving men and women we should be very proud to have in our armed forces. Let us consider the cases of several people who are currently taking the MOD to the European Court of Human Rights.
Lieutenant Commander Duncan Lustig-Prean enlisted in 1983 and was discharged in 1994. The officer's report on him, from Commander Mussey, of 31 December 1993 stated that he was
A most able, conscientious and industrious officer. His engaging and warm personality allows him to communicate effectively at all levels … Resourceful, versatile and perceptive, he is a most effective manager and organiser … his magnanimous and conciliatory nature fosters genuine trust and support … has great all round potential. He is an outstanding prospect for early promotion to Commander.
The word "trust" features in that.
Jeanette Smith, a senior aircraftwoman and nurse, is from Derbyshire. She enlisted in 1989 and was discharged in 1994. Her discharge report said:


SAC Smith has an above average understanding of trade knowledge … There is no evidence to suggest misconduct, corruption, blatant or promiscuous activities or unnatural behaviour on service establishments",
yet that qualified nurse was dismissed.
John Beckett, from the Royal Navy, was a weapons engineer mechanic serving on HMS Collingwood. He enlisted for 22 years in 1989 and was discharged in September 1993. Sir Michael Layard, Second Sea Lord, Chief of Naval Personnel, said of him:
We accept that he was a loyal and patriotic man and that he has not committed a civilian or naval disciplinary offence.
Sergeant Graeme Grady, of the Royal Air Force, enlisted in 1980 and was discharged in 1984. His squadron leader, Squadron Leader McDevitt, stated:
Sergeant Grady … has been a loyal serviceman and a conscientious and hardworking tradesman who could be relied on to achieve the highest standards. He has displayed sound personal qualities and integrity throughout his service and has enjoyed the respect of superiors, peers and subordinates alike.
He was
recommended to any future employer",
but not to the armed services.
Other countries regard this type of ban as completely unnecessary and find it perfectly feasible to employ gays and lesbians. Among the NATO countries that have no ban are Canada; France, which has not had a ban for more than 200 years; Norway; Denmark; the Netherlands, which has had no ban for more than 20 years; Belgium; Spain; and Germany, which has no such ban on conscripts. Israel removed the ban in 1982. The Australians have a strict code on sexual behaviour, which is what I am proposing, but it has no ban. The Swiss have no such ban, nor has New Zealand. On this issue, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Turkey.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the hon. Lady aware that, today, I had a conversation with an Israeli reserve service man who told me that, not only is there no ban on gay or lesbian people in the Israeli army, but that a known Israeli homosexual was promoted as an officer? He has died, and the Israeli army is now considering whether it should award a pension to his male partner.

Mrs. Currie: The point is also well made that, whether with other NATO or United Nations personnel, there is absolutely no doubt that British troops have now served alongside gay service members from many other countries in many theatres of war without any problems arising. We also do not regard it as a matter of concern in other parts of the civilian services. There is no such ban in the police, and there is no such ban in the fire service.
If I am to be told—as no doubt I will be by my hon. Friend the Minister—that it is a matter of people being in close proximity to each other, I should remind him that we removed the ban for merchant seamen, and that we also removed the ban on gays serving in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. There have been no ill consequences of that. In fact, I think that it is probably now true to say that it is not only nice girls who love a sailor.

Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend has not said how she feels about the overwhelming majority of serving

personnel who do not want to have homosexuals in the military. [Interruption.] The German professional forces are the only major organisation in the European countries that she mentioned that has to recruit people rather than having conscripts, and they have the same ban as we do.

Mrs. Currie: I was going to come to that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it.
It seems to me that the reaction of the Ministry of Defence has been rather curious. As part of its approach, it commissioned a survey, a copy of which is in the Library. It seems bizarre that the MOD should commission a survey among soldiers. Its results were predictable. One might, indeed, have stuck the notice up on the mess board saying, "No gays wanted here", which is a paraphrase of what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has just said.
I venture to suggest that a similar outcome might have occurred if, for example, we had asked the Guards whether they wanted blacks serving with them. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister was a sub-lieutenant for three years in the 11th Hussars. Given the amount of wise-cracking that he has been indulging in this evening, perhaps one should dub him the gay Hussar, but there we are.
The Ministry of Defence did not ask soldiers whether women should serve in the armed forces as equals. I believe that if it had done so, it would have received much the same sort of response. But we did not invite the views of serving service men and women on whether females should be allowed to serve as equals. We told them that women would make good truck drivers, navigation officers and pay clerks. We tackled the issues of discipline and good order—more or less successfully, I believe.
The point is that we did not pander to prejudice on that issue. We did not encourage the enunciation of prejudice. We ensured that the armed forces obeyed the new rules and adapted to changed circumstances. We did so because we felt that the armed forces had no choice. But on gays, the Ministry of Defence has a choice. How much more impressive it would be if that choice were exercised with tolerance and dignity.
We have made some progress. Until a couple of years ago, the very fact of being a homosexual was a criminal offence in the armed forces. Yet the improvement is slight. What bothers me is the continued harassment and hounding of officers and ranks. It is official hounding and it appears to be encouraged the moment sexual orientation becomes suspect. In December 1995—a matter of only a few weeks ago—a former Royal Marine was approached in a gay pub in Torquay by a man who later invited him home. Upon leaving the bar, the man produced a Royal Marine military police warrant card and tried to arrest the person. He obviously did not know that the chap had left the Royal Marines some three years earlier, so no action could be taken.
Between September and November 1995, near Aldershot, a member of Rank Outsiders—the campaigning organisation—working on a gay men's health project observed frequent visits to a known cruising area by two men whom he knew were members of the Army special investigation branch. He knew that because they had conducted his investigation some time previously. During the visits he observed the SIB men making approaches to men who were of service appearance and attempting to pick them up.
So we have official agents provocateurs in the armed forces. Not only that, but we are spending quite a lot of money on surveillance. Portsmouth Royal Naval SIB put up a camera observation point in a building opposite Drummonds public house, a known gay bar. Former Able Seaman Brett Burnell was investigated after being photographed entering the pub by the SIB. He was shown the photos and has been discharged.
In 1995, four RAF officers who had been anonymously informed on were subjected to an intensive six-week operation by 12 members of the RAF SIB. The Ministry of Defence is supposed to be short of money, yet it had 12 senior officers of the RAF SIB spend six weeks watching four RAF officers. The evidence clearly shows that they were routinely followed throughout that period. They were informed by their commanding officers on discharge that the evidence from that operation was the justification for discharge.
I have always disapproved of civilian police spending their time taking pictures of public toilets, trying to catch the poor souls who get involved cottaging, because I think that the police ought to be catching real criminals. I take exactly the same view of the military special investigation branches. Surely they have some real cases that they ought to be chasing, and should not be chasing the people whom I have just described.
I have very little to add, except that in the 1990s homosexual men and women have seen attitudes to them change. Attitudes have become more liberal and less harsh in many fields. Homosexuals have been enabled to live with less fear and instead to play their part as ordinary tax-paying citizens, minding their own business like everyone else—but not yet in the armed forces. That is to their disadvantage, the forces' detriment and our country's shame.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I and my colleagues will have a free vote on this issue, but as the spokesman for my party on defence issues, I have signed new clause 1 and I have made a strong recommendation to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they should vote for it.
The issue was considered by the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. I hope that I will not be thought to do an injustice to the Committee if I say that there is nothing very new in its analysis, as reported in its proceedings. Perhaps that is inevitable, because the ground that we are considering is well traversed. The only correct way to approach such an issue is on the basis of principle. I believe firmly as a matter of principle that there should be no discrimination against any person by virtue of race, colour or sexual orientation. In my judgment the issue is firmly rooted in the civil rights of every United Kingdom citizen.
Before we deny any citizen his or her civil rights, there must be overwhelming evidence to justify such a course of action. We deny the civil rights of terrorists because their conduct goes to the very existence of the state. Only in those extreme circumstances is it justified to detract from the civil rights of any individual. It is my judgment that that standard of evidence has not been shown in the circumstances that we are here considering.
The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) moved the new clause with great skill and sincerity. She has been notable for her courage in adopting the matter in circumstances which have not always made her entirely

persona grata within her party. She mentioned the position in other armed forces. The Defence Select Committee has just returned from a three-day visit to Bosnia. We visited several units which are deployed there under the allied rapid reaction corps, of which the United Kingdom has overall command. Virtually all the countries that the hon. Lady mentioned are represented in that NATO deployment.
I did not hear a single British soldier say to me that the Dutch were less effective than the British because they had a different policy on homosexuality in the armed services. I did not hear it suggested that the contribution made by those who had gone to Bosnia from other NATO countries was diminished because those countries had a different policy from that of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred in an intervention to the attitude within our services. It is almost inevitably conditioned by the fact that the ban exists. The views of people in the services are conditioned by the ban.
If one feature of the ban should surely be offensive to all of us, it is the means of enforcing it. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire gave us some eloquent examples. Let us consider the nature of the investigations. They are degrading for those who are the subject of them and, I suspect, pretty degrading for those who have to carry them out. That type of investigation, and the use of agents provocateurs, would be outlawed in a civilian court. It would not be feasible to admit evidence obtained in that way. That is a feature of the matter that ought to be offensive to everyone in the House.
As the hon. Lady said, new clause 1 sets out the principle of no discrimination, but it also sets out other principles in plain language perhaps for the first time in legislation on service discipline. What are those other principles? Sexual conduct of any kind that prejudices good order and discipline is unacceptable and is an offence, as is sexual conduct of any kind which undermines the command relationship and the use of rank or position to obtain sexual favours. Those principles stand robustly behind the principle of non-discrimination at the centre of the new clause.
It would be much better for us to make a measured, sensible decision to change the policy rather than to be forced into it by the inevitable and ultimate judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. Michael Brown: I shall follow the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) by focusing on the last sentence of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the fairness and courtesy with which he has received my representations on behalf of Rank Outsiders during the past year. However, I believe that he will invite the House to reject the new clause by praying in aid the following recommendation by the Select Committee:
We do not recommend any change in the current policy.
That recommendation was based primarily on the report that was commissioned by the MOD last year and that found that the armed forces did not want openly gay people to serve in the forces.
As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said from a sedentary position in answer to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, had we adopted that attitude some 20 or 30 years ago in regard to black people and invited all the ranks to express a view on whether they wanted to shower with black people, the answer would have been exactly the same.
Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is racial or sexual, and prejudice is wrong. It must be outlawed. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire and I do not always see eye to eye on matters relating to Europe. Today is Europe day, so it is an appropriate time for my hon. Friend to have introduced her new clause.
I want the House of Commons always to be the place where discrimination and prejudice are outlawed, but I should also refer to a point that was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. Earlier this year, when four former members of the armed forces took their cases to the Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls said that it was likely that the blanket ban would be held to be in breach of article 8 of the European Convention. It is also possible that the European equal treatment directive will apply if those four ex-service men and women are successful in either of the relevant European institutions.
I want the House to imagine we are debating the same issue in 1998 or 1999. I am sure that the Conservative party will be embarking on an historic fifth term. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have decided that, after nearly a decade as Prime Minister, it is time to become the Earl of Huntingdon. Perhaps, with the unanimous support of all my right hon. and hon. Friends, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who I regret is unable to be here today, will have become Prime Minister. Perhaps he will ask himself, "Who made such an excellent job of my dirty work during the debate in May 1996?", and promote my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the post of Secretary of State for Defence.
My fear is that in 1998 or 1999, whoever is Prime Minister, and whoever is Secretary of State, the Government—a Conservative Government or a Labour Government—will have a ruling against them from the European Court of Human Rights.
I remember the hapless late Lord Joseph coming to the House in 1985 to introduce legislation to outlaw corporal punishment in our schools. It was not a pretty sight. Most of my hon. Friends were thoroughly annoyed and angry by the introduction of such a measure. My late noble Friend said that he was very sorry and that he did not particularly want to introduce such legislation, but that he was required to do so because of a ruling against the United Kingdom by the European Court of Human Rights.
As I said earlier, I believe that the House of Commons should be the place to which those who suffer injustice and prejudice should come, but although I am a Euro-sceptic, I cannot blame those who cannot obtain justice from the House for exercising their right to go to the European Court and using the European convention.
I believe that one day—probably only two or three years hence—my hon. Friend the Minister or an Opposition Member in his post will be required to

introduce legislation and there will not be a free vote. If we are still in power and my hon. Friend has been promoted to Secretary of State, he will be required to stand at the Dispatch Box and present a Bill. All my hon. Friends whose views differ from mine will be very angry that they will not have a free vote, as they were in 1985 when the late Lord Joseph was required to introduce the measure to which I referred.
It is inevitable that this ban will be outlawed—if not by the House of Commons, certainly by the European Court and probably by the European Court of Human Rights—and a Minister of the Crown will have to come to the House under duress to overturn it. I do not like to see Ministers under duress from outside organisations. I want them to right injustices because those injustices are patently wrong.
We understand that 300 to 400 service men and women have been discharged from the forces during the past three or four years. How many hundreds of service men and women who the special investigations branch have not yet found or have not yet been grassed up are quietly going about their daily business serving their country? They fought in the Gulf war and they serve all over the world, risking their lives for our country. Tonight there are gay people in the armed forces who have not yet been grassed up by the special investigations branch. If he cannot do so tonight, I believe that one day my hon. Friend the Minister will have to do something about this gross injustice. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to him for the manner in which he has always received the delegations that I have led on behalf of Rank Outsiders.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I shall not detain the House for long. It is more than a decade since, on behalf of the Labour party, I proposed the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the armed forces. I am only sorry we do not have a more powerful Whip on that today.
The reason why I reached that conclusion and recommended that course of action to my right hon. and hon. Friends was twofold. First, it was basically wrong that two individuals could be engaged in a sexual act that would be completely legal for one person, but for another it would be a disciplinary fault for which he would be dismissed from the armed forces. That seemed basically wrong in practice and in principle.
Secondly, I remembered the background to the Calcutt inquiry and its overtones of homosexuality, heterosexuality and blackmail. There could be nothing worse than for members of the armed forces to risk their careers, and perhaps through fear of blackmail, put their country at risk for doing something which, under proper circumstances, was accepted in civilian life. It seems wrong to put our service people in that position.
At the time, during the cold war, the pressures to which members of the armed forces—in that case it was in Cyprus, but also elsewhere—were subjected because of their sexual orientation and particular way of displaying it seemed very wrong. Those two reasons seemed compelling then, and they remain compelling. I urge my hon. Friends to consider the incongruity of the fact that one person can be disciplined and lose his job for engaging in an activity with another person for whom it is perfectly legal, and the dangers and pressures under which members of our armed forces could be put.

Mr. Wilkinson: This is probably the most important debate on the Bill. We must not be in any sense


censorious—that is the last thing we want—but must seriously consider the evidence. Five years ago, I had the great privilege of chairing a Special Standing Committee on an armed forces Bill. It is an enormous merit of that procedure that hon. Members can take evidence from interested parties. On this occasion, the Committee reached in essence exactly the same conclusion that we did five years ago, when we recommended decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour in the armed forces—which the Government implemented.
We recommended also that homosexual behaviour was not compatible with remaining in the armed forces, because members of them did not want any change. After all, they are the best judges of the appropriate values for the organisations in which they serve. Those values may not seem to us identical to those that we normally share, but the profession of arms is a calling distinct from civilian life. Although those values may appear a bit traditional, for those who serve in the armed forces they are greatly appreciated. They are appreciated also by parents who are perhaps encouraging their children's aspiration to enter the armed services. If parents felt that the forces condoned homosexuality, a large number of them would do their best to resist the recruitment of their children.

Mrs. Currie: That is prejudice.

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend may say that, but I speak of the sort of family values that are held by most people in this country—and which the armed forces are called upon to defend, if necessary, with their lives. We ought to be chary before seeking to impose on the armed forces values that they do not want.

Mrs. Currie: It does not look as though my two daughters plan to enter the armed forces, but if they were to do so, I would be obliged to warn them that they were more likely to be killed or seriously injured than be the subject of homosexual attack.

Mr. Wilkinson: As my hon. Friend admitted, that is a purely hypothetical situation in respect of her children. I will not make my argument so subjective but will specifically address my hon. Friend's proposed new clause. Subsection (1) states:
Sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, shall not constitute an offence under any provision of this Act unless that conduct—
(a) is prejudicial, or may be prejudicial, to good order and discipline".

Members of the armed forces believe that homosexuality—because of its nature, the intensity of the emotions involved, and the risk of blackmail and of undue influence—is prejudicial to good order and discipline, particularly in the close confines required of service in the field, remote stations or on ships at sea.
Subsection (1)(b) of new clause 1 states that homosexuality shall not be an offence unless it
undermines, or tends to undermine, command relationships".
Again, that is true where there is favouritism—particularly of a sexual kind. That form of bonding can impair the necessary discipline and mutuality of respect inherent in the command relationship.
Subsection (1)(c) provides for an offence where the conduct
involves the use of rank or position to obtain sexual favours".
The armed forces have gradations of rank that may seem strange to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie), but they are a necessary function of the command system. Almost inevitably with differences in age, there will be differences of rank. As there are bound to be such differences, there are also bound to be problems if homosexuality in the armed forces is condoned.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of a man in a senior position using his seniority to make unwanted sexual advances to a woman of junior rank, in civilian or Army life? The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that there should be no women in the armed forces either.

Mr. Wilkinson: I shall not follow the hon. Lady's intervention. Suffice it to say that differences of responsibility of rank accentuate the potential mutuality of attraction or the influence that one person may have over another. A homosexual dimension is a complication that the armed services can do without.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Wilkinson: I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
Many speakers in the debate cited the practices of the armed services of other countries. They are welcome to run their armed forces as they run their other institutions—according to traditions, values, history and patterns of behaviour that appear to them to be right and normal. The British armed services are essentially Regular forces because, except in times of emergency or war, we do not usually go in for conscription. We are selective and have particular standards and values, which do not include condoning homosexual behaviour. It may be that the matter will eventually go to the European Court of Justice and that the equal opportunities directive may be invoked, to seek to impose on the United Kingdom's armed forces a pattern of values with which the majority of service men are not happy.
My hon. Friend the Minister may recall an Adjournment debate in which I moved against the Ministry of Defence decision to grant compensation retrospectively to ex-service women required to leave the armed forces on the ground of pregnancy and thereby retrospectively gain huge sums in compensation. The MOD's decision to cede the principle has already cost the British taxpayer more than £50 million.

Mr. Stephen Day: Disgraceful.

Mr. Wilkinson: Just as my hon. Friend says.
It is also wrong for the European Court of Justice to arrogate unto itself an intrusive right, because, under the treaty of union signed in Maastricht, defence remains a national responsibility—so manpower policies within the armed forces, including disciplinary provisions, should


rest with member states. I hope that—in the unfortunate eventuality the ECJ is called on to adjudicate—the Government will resist—

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend means the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am talking about a decision based on the equal opportunities directive. I am not talking about a potential decision of European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, because we are a signatory to the convention, so I am excluding that court from my arguments. I am specifically addressing my arguments to the ECJ. If there were an adverse decision by the ECJ, I hope that the Government would refuse it because otherwise we would open a floodgate to retrospective compensation claims at great cost to the British taxpayer.
The majority of the British armed forces do not want any change in our rules on homosexuality; the Government have been entirely right to support that majority and to accept the advice of the Select Committee on the matter.

Mr. Kaufman: As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) perhaps knows, I have considerable personal respect for him, but the speech that he made just now is the kind of speech, on subjects related to decent and sensible reform, that the House has heard for centuries. It is the kind of speech that is made when something that makes sense is being proposed by those who are trying to prevent what is inevitably going to happen. I shall refer to such matters a little more before I sit down.
Two points emerge so far from the debate, following the admirable speech by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie). The first is the implication that, because a Select Committee of the House has made a report, the Government are bound by it. I only wish that was so in the case of the Select Committee on National Heritage, because, if so, the Government's confusions about listed sporting events and about Channel Four funding would have been eliminated at source.
The second question that arises in my mind—following the speech by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, the report of the Select Committee and much of the comment about the issue—is what, is it about members of the United Kingdom armed forces that makes them so vulnerable to seduction by homosexuals? What is it about them? Are they so fastidious, and are they so vulnerable in a way that service men in the rest of Europe, in other countries and in the state of Israel are not? Are we recruiting weaklings into our armed forces? That is the implication of the terrible danger that appears to be hanging over them, as advanced in the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
The hon. Gentleman said that homosexuality is not compatible with membership of Her Majesty's forces. That is very strange to me, because I have a slight suspicion that there are large numbers of homosexuals in our armed forces today. I have a further suspicion that there have been homosexuals throughout history in our own armed forces and those of other great powers, and, somehow or other, we have managed to win wars all the same.
Is the implication that the official acceptance of homosexuality would bring discredit on our armed forces? If so, we should have proof that that has taken place. If I consider other cases in the armed forces, I see that a convicted murderer, Paratrooper Lee Clegg, has not only been retained in the armed forces after his release from prison, but has been promoted to lance-corporal and made second in command of an eight-man rifle section. It seems to be all right to promote a convicted murderer in our armed forces, but it would appear that people of a particular sexual orientation are more dangerous to the good name of our armed forces.
Three men, who have now been discharged from our armed forces, killed a woman, Louise Jensen, in Cyprus in the most brutal and appalling way. I do not gain any impression from reading press reports of that case that those were gay men who were driven to murder that woman so brutally, yet they have inflicted more discredit on our armed forces than anyone else I can remember in recent years—so much so that the Secretary of State for Defence has had to make a public apology for what took place.
Last night, I was reading "Roads to Ruin: The Shocking History of Social Reform" by E. S. Turner. He has looked at rearguard actions against sensible and decent reform over the centuries. What emerges from that great book is that the kind of untenable, illogical and prejudiced arguments that have been advanced against new clause 1, which I have signed, were advanced about all other kinds of social reform on which we would regard it as ludicrous that they should even have been debated.
Those reforms included stopping children and women going down coal mines; it was described as ridiculous to say that that was not a satisfactory or admirable state of affairs. The Plimsoll line has saved the lives of many seafarers, but it was said in the House that it was ludicrous that that elementary reform should be introduced.
A number of us have been in the House for many years and the kind of arguments that have been advanced by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, and will no doubt be advanced by other Conservative Members tonight, are analogous to the very arguments that have been put in the House for generations, and that led to innocent men being hanged for murder. It has even been argued that we should take that risk.
We take a good deal of sanctimonious satisfaction from the role of the House of Commons. We are all proud—as I am—to be Members of the House of Commons, but we seem to imagine that the House has been a force for forward and inevitable reform over centuries and generations. The fact has to be faced that this is a House of belated reform, and a House that often does not get around to obvious, necessary and logical reforms.
It has to be said that the House has allowed a terrible amount of human suffering to take place because it has been so slow to accept logical and sensible arguments for reform. There is a great list of examples for anybody who studies Hansard over the decades, generations and centuries. This debate will eventually take its place in the annals of those debates, in which the House has shown itself reluctant to do the right, sensible and decent thing.
It may well be that new clause I will be defeated tonight, but the hon. Member for South Derbyshire is far too tough a campaigner to believe that that will be the end of the story. She will win, and all those who agree with


her will win, but before she does, and before we do, we will have to go through some more years of hypocrisy and persecution. It is about time that the House did the right thing at the right time. Tonight is the right time.

Mr. Key: After more than decade of representing many thousands of service men and women in all three services, I have come to the conclusion that it would be right to support the status quo tonight. I have given that pledge to my military constituents and their families, and to all my constituents.
The argument stems from the military ethos, which filters down through the whole chain of command, and says straightforwardly that the military are different. Historically, it has been different for a very long time, and certainly since the county regiments were established. That is a fact. To understand it and the implications that flow from it, one either has to have served in the armed forces, which I have not, or to have undertaken the sort of investigation carried out by the Select Committee of which I have had the honour to be a member for the past four months.
We, the members of the Committee, talked to service men and women on and off duty in England, Northern Ireland and Germany. Initially, I thought that it was a put-up job. I thought that all the people lined up for us to speak to must have been hand-picked and told what to say. As the week went by, we met scores of people who continued to say the same thing.
I came to realise that, in the British armed forces, there is a deep and genuine conviction that homosexuals have no place in service life. Other people may not like that attitude, but it is a plain fact. The courts may not like it, and they may seek to change it. My greatest fear is that change may be forced on the services too fast, with all the attendant risks of recrimination, victimisation and real unrest. We should not add to those risks by agreeing to the new clause.
Change will come slowly when it comes. It will need a massive change of culture, and a massive re-education programme in the armed forces.
8 pm
Service men and women are not unreasonable people. I found it ironical that, while they were horrified at the thought of homosexuals in the forces, they accepted homosexuals in the rest of the community in civilian life. One service man told me that his brother was a homosexual, and that he had told him not to join the Army.
Recently, I was in Bosnia with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). We visited forces from the United States, Canada and Holland. Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I took the opportunity of asking about homosexuality in those forces. Only in the Dutch contingent did I find genuine acceptance of homosexuals.
In none of those forces did the nationals concerned believe that there was any threat to discipline, to undermining of command relationships or to operational effectiveness on the battlefield because of the presence of homosexuals. There was no suggestion in the British forces that in NATO British troops would not accept orders from those who might be homosexuals in other forces, or would refuse to serve alongside them.
I have much sympathy for the terms of the new clause. We shall return to the issue, but tonight is not the time to press it. The General Medical Council has been quoted, and I am disappointed that we have not heard from it. I fully understand that service doctors are part of the chain of command. The Standing Committee was told of harrowing events, such as the homosexual sailor who set off on a tour of duty of some months and realised after a few weeks that he had a genital problem. He realised that the ship's medical officer would be bound to take action leading to his discharge from the service. The sailor waited for four months before going to his family general practitioner at home. That is unacceptable and dangerous. It is dangerous to the sailor and to his colleagues. That is something that must be addressed.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Would not the answer be to agree to the new clause? It seems that the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and that of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), is that homosexuals are much more likely than heterosexuals to behave in an improper fashion sexually, or in a more coercive fashion. What evidence is there that that is so? If there is none, as I believe, surely the logic is that those who oppose the new clause are prejudiced. We should oppose their prejudiced views.

Mr. Key: The answer is that there is no such evidence. If the hon. Lady will hear me out, she will understand why I take that point.
I talked about chaplains when the Bill was being considered in Standing Committee. There was a flurry in the national press, and then a rather tragic flow of correspondence in the Church Times. I had written to the Bishop of Her Majesty's forces asking for clarification from Bishop John Kirkham, the Bishop of Sherborne. The bishop replied on 1 May. His letter was duly published in the Church Times. The letter is important, because so many people were concerned that they could not trust chaplains.
The bishop wrote:
The position is quite clear and is fully endorsed by the Chaplain of the Fleet, the Chaplain General and the Chaplain-in-chief (RAF). Chaplains in HM Forces are commissioned as chaplains and their status as officers in no way prejudices their absolute duty of confidentiality on all matters as priests and ministers of their respective Churches. This position is recognised by the authorities in the three Services. If individual chaplains have failed in their duty of confidentiality, for whatever reason, that is a matter of extreme regret and they have contravened their duty as chaplains.
Whatever the courts may say, it is unacceptable and uncivilised for the forces of the Crown to recognise on the one hand that homosexuality in the armed forces is not a criminal offence, and then to make use of agents provocateurs or covert surveillance to expose homosexuals. The Select Committee was told that the Ministry of Defence has never discharged homosexuals for criminal offences; just being a homosexual is enough.
As a former military chaplain told the Church Times recently, those who have been offended by the practice of "outing" prominent people should remember that the Ministry of Defence has been doing it to its personnel for years. That is not something of which anyone can be proud.
Whatever the Committee decides this evening, we shall return to this issue.

Mr. Alan Howarth: It is not fitting to condone prejudice and injustice in the armed


forces any more than it is elsewhere in society. It is clearly prejudice that we are discussing. Some of the world's greatest and most famous soldiers have been homosexual. There is surely no Member of this place who would seriously seek to deny that, for many centuries, homosexuals have served in the British armed forces with distinction. With great courage, skill and patriotism, they have contributed to the service of their country. It is plainly an injustice that men or women, on account of their sexuality, should be denied the opportunity to serve their country in the armed services.
It would have been right for the Government to give the lead in seeking to undo the culture of prejudice within the armed services by banning discrimination on the ground of sexuality. Sadly, the Government have not chosen to do so. The new clause is plainly sensible and decent, and the Government should not hesitate to accept it.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The points that I want to make have been succinctly set out in a letter that I wrote to the Select Committee on Defence. I shall repeat only one of them. What sticks in my craw, as much as anything, is the thought that, if a man has served in the armed service for perhaps 10 years—he may well have been decorated and subjected to the most extraordinary perils—and if by some mischance he has an accident and as a result of consequent medical examination is discovered to be a homosexual, even though he may have lived 180 miles away from the base and there has never been a flicker of a suggestion of improper, indecent or offensive behaviour, and he has been a model of discipline, he will lose his job. His livelihood and everything else will be lost. All he has done for the nation will be thrown away by sheer mischance and the prejudice that exists within the armed services.
It is not fair, it is entirely improper, and it flies in the face of the causes for which the armed services claim to stand.

Mr. Tony Banks: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) on tabling the new clause. I also congratulate those who support her. The proposal has my support.
We have just heard a classic example of the theory of unsound time. Indeed, it has been put to us on two occasions, and both have involved the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). First, we were discussing the possibility of forgiveness and a pardon for so-called cowardice during the first world war. The hon. Gentleman showed no compassion. In effect, he said that it was too late. We have been told by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that it is too early to agree to the new clause. It is too late on one hand and too early on the other. It is never too late and it is never too early to do something that is proper. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has made that clear.
The House will have to come round to the matter. It will have to be decided. The barrenness of the arguments from those who oppose the new clause shows that up. Those who oppose it are scraping the barrel. They start by paying fulsome tribute to those homosexuals whom

they know have served the country and continue to serve the country. But still they say that they will, in effect, be condemned for their sexual orientation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton gave us the example of the three sub-human heterosexuals in Cyprus. Is it so wonderful to be heterosexual in those circumstances? They are the sort of people who bring shame to our armed forces, not those homosexual men who loyally serve their country and are ready to die for it, yet are still treated abysmally by the House and the Government.
On the amendment moved by hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the House revealed itself as having no compassion in terms of its majority. Now it appears to be revealing itself as homophobic as well. It is appalling to see the House of Commons behave in that way.
We have heard about the survey of the armed forces and told that somehow we must accept its results as sufficient evidence for the rejection of the new clause. I should like to know far more about that survey, although there is not time to go into the matter tonight.
I understand that no anonymity was given to those who were questioned. Who will come forward and say that they think that gays should be allowed to serve in the armed forces? Even if a person who did so was heterosexual, one could imagine what would be said to him afterwards. The finger of suspicion would be pointed at such people, whatever their sexual orientation. How can we possibly accept that the survey is socially just or statistically admissible?
It is no good saying that we will allow prejudice to determine policy. That is precisely what this is all about—not wanting homosexuals in the Army. I am sure that, if the same people were asked, they would say that they did not want blacks or even women in the Army. Shall we allow racists and sexists to determine national policy in Britain? That is not what we should be doing. We should not abrogate our power and responsibility to the British people, because those who are prejudiced say that they do not want any change in the way in which we organise the armed forces. We cannot accept that survey as acceptable on any terms.
We decide, and we must determine. The new clause is in time now, and to postpone it further is only to bring further disgrace on the House and further to alienate those gay men and women who have loyally served, and will continue so to serve, Britain's armed forces.

Mr. Viggers: I wish only to assure the House of the care and the concern that the Select Committee put into considering this issue. Knowing that the Ministry of Defence had commissioned an enormous report on the subject, I encouraged institutions and bodies with a special interest in the subject to submit evidence to us, and we took evidence from those who had a special interest in the subject.
During the past five months, the Select Committee, on its visits and in receiving evidence here in the House of Commons, has asked scores, even hundreds, of service men and others what their attitude is to homosexuality in the armed forces. I think that it is right that we should take account of the overwhelming response that came back, which is that they wish the status quo to continue.
The Select Committee considered the issue very carefully, and I am confident that the conclusion we reached is correct.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The ban on homosexuals and lesbians serving in the armed forces treats those people, and all homosexuals and lesbians in Britain, as second-class citizens. That should not be, and the ban should go.
There was no such discrimination in the second world war. According to statistics, at least 250,000 homosexuals served in the British forces during that war. One of those was a Mr. Dudley Cave, now aged 75. He was quoted in The Guardian yesterday, and I shall just read a little bit of the article:
Cave recalls that neither the top brass nor fellow soldiers showed any concern about gay enlistees. 'There were none of the witch hunts that we have nowadays … Homosexual soldiers were more or less accepted. The visible gays were mostly drag performers in concert teams. Regarded with considerable affection, their camp humour helped lift the men's spirits'.
Contrary to the current fears of the generals, during the war there was no evidence that homosexual soldiers undermined unit cohesion:
'All the gays and straights worked together as a team. We had to because our lives might have depended on it'.
If that discrimination was unacceptable in wartime, it is unacceptable in peacetime as well, and I say that the ban should go.
Sex on duty or in the barracks is, of course, not acceptable. But that is the case with heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. However, what soldiers do in their private time should not be the subject of prurient investigation, disciplinary action and the sack. The ban is a gross breach of the civil liberties of those individuals, and it is almost certain that the United Kingdom will be found to be in violation of the European convention on human rights. That is why I support the new clause tonight.

Mr. Clive Betts: I first say to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who was concerned about the threat of blackmail if we passed the new clause, and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) who was concerned about the threat of victimisation: what on earth do they think is happening in the armed forces today? There is blackmail and victimisation because people are frightened that they will lose their jobs and be discharged if their sexuality is discovered. That is the situation.
I want to refer to the case of one of my constituents, Mr. John Beckett, with whom I have had correspondence and a lengthy conversation on his situation, which is most concerning and should worry every hon. Member.
John Beckett is a young man who had an exemplary record, to which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) referred in an excellent speech in moving the new clause. He was to be considered as an officer candidate. He had an unblemished record both in civilian and military life. He had given more than five years of his young life to the armed services. He was trained and extremely committed. Not only had he committed himself and a number of years of his life to his vocation, but thousands of pounds of public money had been spent on his training.
John Beckett told me that, when he entered the armed services, he did not know that he was gay. He subsequently had a relationship in civilian life. He never had a relationship with anyone in the armed services, either someone with whom he was serving closely or in another part of the armed services. He had one civilian relationship.
As a result of that, he spoke to the services' padre. On his advice, he went to his senior officer to report the situation. He was an honest and open young man, who was concerned about the situation and went to talk about it. As a result of volunteering that information, he was subjected to a most humiliating interview. I hope that it was as humiliating to the person who conducted it as it was to John Beckett, going, as it did, into every possible aspect of his private and personal relationships. I am not sure what they have to do with defending Britain in a proper manner. He was subsequently discharged.
John Beckett is now studying at college and wants to enter the fire service. I asked him how he now felt about the armed services; what his attitude was towards them. He said, "If Parliament was to change its view, I simply want to have the chance to go back and continue to serve my country. That is what I have always wanted to do, and it is still the view that I hold."
The House should know that John Beckett has not committed any crime—he has simply offended against bigotry and prejudice, and those who hold those views. The Select Committee has collected many pages of evidence, but, however many pages it collects, it cannot prove that bigotry and prejudice are right.
If we fail to pass the new clause tonight, John Beckett will not stand guilty of any crime, but we in the House will stand guilty of failing to allow him and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other young people the opportunity to serve Britain in the way that they have chosen simply because of their sexuality. I believe that to be wrong. I hope that the House passes the new clause.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I was impelled to investigate this subject, and, in particular, to read the Select Committee report, by a constituency case that was drawn to my attention. Hon. Members who are not present now might well have examined the issue more closely if they too had encountered such cases.
I was rather shocked by the Select Committee's approach, and will remain so unless the Minister or anyone else can give reasons for it. I served in the Army, and—understandably, I think; the majority of Army personnel, both male and female, are heterosexual—if I had been asked the question, I would have responded, "Let the position remain as it is." That is a natural response. I therefore do not think that, basing its view on that evidence, the Select Committee was particularly convincing.
The question is—a question that many hon. Members have asked—who knows? My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) gave examples of distinguished military personnel of the past. I thought of my comrades in the forces as people. One might have had ideas or suspicions, but that was as far as it went. It was what they did that counted, and I knew what they would do if we were in a tight corner. Fortunately, I never had that experience, but I could imagine it, and there is plenty of evidence that other qualities are what matter in such circumstances.
So it is a case of "Who knows?"—unless, of course, agents provocateurs are involved. I hope that, if this excellent debate achieves nothing else, it will lead the Secretary of State—he is not present now, but his Minister is—to review the policy on agents provocateurs. I hope that he will make it clear that the Government accept the view of the bishops, of which the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) reminded us, and will at least consider—perhaps not immediately—introducing the confidentiality that I believe should exist between doctor and patient and between Member of Parliament and constituent. Let us hope that at least those matters will be considered, whether or not the new clause is accepted.
I think that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is under a misapprehension. When I was commissioned, we were given a number of lectures. I should say that I held the commission of his late Majesty George VI, so this was some time ago. We were lectured about codes of conduct for officers—I should like to think that those codes now extend to all ranks, but that is by the way—and particularly about heterosexual behaviour with people in the area or with other officers' wives.
That code was fairly clear. Surely, in the end, it is codes of conduct rather than the letter of the law that count. I suggest to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood—who I believe was himself an officer in Her Majesty's forces—that what is important is the way in which our extremely wonderful instincts are used, and the degree of responsibility or irresponsibility with which they are used, irrespective of orientation.
I hope that the Minister will tell me what is wrong with the proposal for a code of conduct of the sort specified in new subsection (1). The subsection states that sexual conduct,
whether heterosexual or homosexual"—
which really means sexual conduct of any description—
shall not constitute an offence
except in certain circumstances. It would even be possible to remove the words "heterosexual" and "homosexual" from the legislation.
I also want to know why that provision cannot stand on its own. I realise that new subsection (2), which deals with disciplinary proceedings or discharge, may have legal implications, but surely that is consequential on the code of conduct specified in new subsection (1).
Let me deal with another issue that has not been mentioned so far. Her Majesty's forces contain both men and women, and, owing to gender differences, in normal circumstances—for obvious reasons—there is always more pressure on women. If a woman whose orientation is not known, as a result of her actions, an admission by her or any other indication does not respond as others hope, her susceptibility to, for instance, blackmail is different from that of a man in an equivalent position. Certain cases, well known from the newspapers, have shown that to be true.
I hope that, whatever happens tonight, the Minister will bear some of those background issues in mind.

Mr. Tony Banks: He is not even listening.

Mr. Spearing: I hope that he will listen. I hope that administrative action will be reviewed as a result of the

debate;, and I hope that the Minister will tell us why he cannot accept new subsection (1)—if not now, at a later stage—rewording it as he wishes, but concentrating on responsible use of these wonderful powers that we all have, rather than contravention of good order and military discipline.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: When the Minister replies, I hope that he will touch on the report of the homosexuality policy assessment team to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) alluded, and, in particular, the experience in Australia, where the ban was lifted in 1992—notwithstanding the objections of a number of members of the joint chiefs of staff in Australia, who expressed the view that relaxation of the rule would be unacceptable.
According to the report, in Australia, after the initial outcry, homosexuality has become a non-issue. Exercising a flawed logic, however, the report then sets out a conclusion that is at variance with that statement:
Australia enjoys a multi ethnic, multi cultural society with a considerable willingness, in the metropolitan areas at least, to accept sexual behaviour which, in the UK, is still regarded with a considerable degree of suspicion.
Where has the Ministry of Defence been? It is based in London, for goodness' sake.
It is the conclusion of that report that has informed the Government's response to the new clause. It is time for Britain to fall in line with Australia, New Zealand and the other European countries, and it is time for the House to support new clause 1.

Dr. Reid: It goes without saying that the subject of homosexuality in the armed forces was the most sensitive subject, and certainly the most intractable, with which the Select Committee had to deal. It forced us to make a judgment, on balance, between a general principle and a specific duty, both of which are dear to the majority of hon. Members.
The general principle is that sexual orientation or preference, in itself, should not exclude a person from the opportunities that are available to others. Most hon. Members probably support that principle. The same applies to the specific duty—the burden of duty placed on hon. Members to ensure that those whom we may ask to risk, and possibly sacrifice, their lives in the defence of this country are given the maximum support in securing maximum operational effectiveness, and thus the minimum number of casualties. That judgment, on the relative priorities to be given to civil rights on one hand and military imperatives on the other is never easy, but it often has to be made in military life.
Our most precious freedom, freedom of speech, does not apply in the British military, nor does the right to engage in political or trade union activity—freedoms which are so valued by us and which we take for granted. Again, the right to resign and the right to privacy in the most intimate of social situations is severely curtailed. Occasionally, whole groups suffer the curtailment of such rights. Women are excluded from combat units, and legislation incorporating the rights of disabled persons specifically excludes the military. These are always difficult decisions, but the blanket nature of the ban on homosexuals and lesbians makes that judgment, for me anyway, even more anguished.
8.30 pm
There will be a free vote on this issue, so I can speak only for the Labour Members of the Committee. We approached the problem with three initial premises. The first was that it was no part of our task to make moral judgments on sexual orientation; nor are there grounds for questioning the professionalism, dedication, courage or patriotism of homosexuals, individually or as a group.
The second premise was that we were dealing with a practical decision which takes effect not in general, not in the abstract or in civilian life, but within real life in the British armed forces. Finally, we are dealing with today's armed forces. In Britain, however enlightening foreign or historical comparisons may be, there is no perfect blueprint that can be automatically transposed, although, God knows, sometimes we wish that there were.
On the basis of those premises, when we cut through the fog, the propaganda and the prejudice, three essential questions remain. First, would allowing homosexuals openly to join the armed forces tend to weaken operational effectiveness? Secondly, would it be possible in the imposed social intimacy of the armed forces to guarantee the right to privacy of the sexual preference of homosexuals and the right to privacy of heterosexuals? Thirdly, is there an obvious compromise that might satisfy both sides?
I shall deal first with the question of operational effectiveness. As we know, the army's purpose is to fight. Whatever additional tasks it is given and irrespective of what other armies are constructed for, the purpose of the British Army is to fight and to win. Humanitarian or civil tasks are in addition to that, not a substitute for it. The burden that Parliament places on the members of our armed forces is to fight and win, even if they have to sacrifice not only their liberty but their lives.
The fighting power of a force consists of three elements. There is the conceptual element of tactics, doctrine and strategy; the resources element, which means the physical resources that we provide; and morale.
In military life, morale fulfils a purpose that is different from its normal usage. In military terms, it is both more specific and more comprehensive. It includes not only matters such as belief in a just cause or pride in the regiment's traditions but also, and crucially, ordered relations within a unit, absolute trust in one's comrades and absolute confidence in one's leaders. Those are the qualities that motivate a soldier to fight, and fight better than his enemy. If they are diminished, so is the command structure, the cohesion and the operational effectiveness of the military unit.
Among the factors that are most likely to undermine that mutual confidence, obedience and cohesion is the existence or the perceived existence of a special relationship between particular members of a unit, especially a relationship of a romantic or sexual nature.

Mrs. Currie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if a relationship was seen in any way to be damaging to discipline, I would be against it as well? What concerns us is that, when no such relationship is going on and discipline is not damaged, these people can still be dismissed.

Dr. Reid: I shall cover that when I deal with the hon. Lady's clause. I shall later deal with the difference

between having a code of conduct to deal with incidents when they arise, and increasing the circumstances that are likely to give rise to more incidents.

Mr. George Galloway: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Reid: I shall certainly do that when I have finished this part of my speech.
Relationships which damage cohesion, such as those of a romantic or sexual nature, are particularly damaging. In situations in which such special relationships are most likely to develop in the armed forces, personnel are separated by gender. Therefore, as a matter of course in the armed forces, in the most intimate situations that are likely to lead to special relationships, a heterosexual is separated from the potential object of his or her sexual preference. Precisely the opposite circumstances would obtain for homosexuals, as they would be integrated in units with members of their own sex. That is the key problem, and it does not relate to prejudiced allegations of increased potential for promiscuity among homosexuals.

Mr. Galloway: I sympathise with my hon. Friend in his difficult job with his brief. He must be aware of the inherent and enormous contradiction between what he is saying and the obvious fact that it is possible and acceptable to be a homosexual member of a war Parliament or a war Cabinet, or a homosexual Secretary of State for Defence but not to be a homosexual private in the Royal Corps of Signals. There is an inherent absurdity in that proposition.
I put to my hon. Friend another contradiction in case he is not aware of it. I shall put to him a fantastic hypothesis. Suppose there were two homosexual members of a war Cabinet. Would that mean that that war Cabinet's effectiveness in waging and directing war might be compromised by a special relationship that might exist between those two Cabinet members?

Dr. Reid: I shall reply to my hon. Friend's points in reverse order. My hon. Friend asks about a war Cabinet. It is obvious that he completely missed the distinction that I drew between civilian and military life. My hon. Friend has given me a poisoned chalice. Without being facetious, I shall try to answer his first point. The difference between a Secretary of State for Defence and a member of an army unit is that the Secretary of State does not have to sleep every night with the Minister for Procurement or the Armed Forces Minister. [Laughter.] However, the member of an armed unit might have to sleep with a comrade.
I am not trying to bring levity to this sensitive and intractable subject. Hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens want a serious debate. I do not suggest for a minute that such special relationships destroy operational effectiveness. I am suggesting that they would weaken operational effectiveness and in battle such a reduction could mean the loss of lives as well as the loss of battles.
I do not underestimate the weight of the arguments that have been advanced tonight because no liberty held to be precious in civilian society can be negated in the military as a matter of course or without justification. Prejudice is no ground on its own for the continuation of past practice, but nor can practical problems be wished away.

Sir Andrew Bowden: I will be supporting the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the


Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie), but the hon. Gentleman is indulging in disgraceful weasel words. He has tried to stand on both sides of the fence at the same time. He represents the Opposition Front-Bench team, which hopes one day to form a Government. If it cannot give leadership one way or the other, it is not fit to govern.

Dr. Reid: First, I have already made it plain that, for Labour Members, there is a free vote. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman can accuse me of many things tonight; one of them might not be representing Labour Members behind me, but to suggest that it shows cowardice or a lack of courage to put the argument that I am advancing is nonsense.
I do not underestimate those arguments about civil liberties, but there is another argument that, if that was controversial, is, I appreciate, even more sensitive, but must be put because it is felt generally to be important by members of the armed forces. I accept that their views are not sufficient to continue a ban, but they are one of the necessary elements that must be considered.
The argument involves a genuine concern that was put to me by a female soldier and it crystallises the case, so I can be brief. She said, "Dr. Reid, even in the imposed social intimacy of the Army, you and your colleagues at Westminster would defend my right to refuse to share the most intimate experiences of sleeping, sharing and bathing with a man. You would do that not because you assume evil intention on the part of the man, but because it offends my sensibilities as a woman, because it may offend my sense of privacy or decency or because I may feel that I am the object of inquisitive sexual observation by the man, but all the reasons why you would give me that right would be on my perceptions, not on the intentions of the man. If you change this rule, will you give me the right to protect my privacy if I refuse to shower with one of my lesbian colleagues?" I did not have a satisfactory answer for her then and, frankly, I do not now.
That sums up the second intractable conflict between trying to give the homosexual rights of privacy while balancing them with the heterosexual rights of privacy in the armed forces.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that those of us who served on the Select Committee and who talked to serving men and women think that some of their views, although my hon. Friends might not agree with them, deserve better consideration than being denounced as mere homophobia, and that they are genuine concerns? Their concerns about operational efficiency led me, him and other hon. Friends to put our names to the report.

Dr. Reid: I agree. Individuals have a range of feelings that are often difficult to classify because they range from irrational prejudices to moral perceptions. Sometimes, that distinction is not made, although I must say to my hon. Friend, who has been helpful, that there are hon. Members who will be in the same Division Lobby as me tonight who sometimes seem incapable of presenting a logical argument because they are blinded with prejudice.
There are logical, objective grounds for qualifying what is a very valuable civil right to preserve effectiveness. However, it is honourable and legitimate to say that the

weight of the civil liberties argument is sufficiently great to overcome both the operational reduction in effectiveness and the case for privacy for heterosexuals. There is nothing dishonourable in making that balance and in arriving at a judgment that is different from mine, but the Labour Members of the Select Committee were not persuaded that that change was necessary.
I say again, however, that the decision was on balance. It was not taken lightly or without agonising. We fully recognise the clash of principle and the practical problems. We do not argue that the present position is perfect and, in particular, we entirely concur with tonight's speeches that have been directed at entrapment, agent provocateurs, harassment and, on occasions, disgusting treatment, which should not be meted out to any citizen in this country, in any condition. I have no time for any of that, and I hope that it will be stopped immediately.

Mr. Michael Brown: I fully understand the particular responsibility that goes with the hon. Gentleman's position, the more so because he aspires to occupy the Treasury Bench, but the country needs to know what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) would do if they ever became Ministers and were forced to act as a consequence of a European Court of Human Rights directive.

Dr. Reid: I was coming to the European Court of Human Rights, although I think that the hon. Gentleman will be slightly disappointed.
We have not argued that the position will never change. It will obviously be reviewed again during the next Parliament. No one here could be stupid enough to think that the issue will go away. I cannot imagine that it will not recur for reconsideration. It is not our job to guess the what the European Court of Human Rights will do, but we are aware that it is likely to be asked to issue a ruling on this matter during the next Parliament. We will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.

Mr. George Howarth: Although I will be in a different Lobby from my hon. Friend tonight and disagree with what he says, I respect the way in which he is putting his argument. On returning to the issue in future, does he agree that, if the new clause is defeated tonight, the people who believe, as I do, that the current position is wrong—and that should include the Government—must go out and sell the case to the armed services that they should no longer peddle prejudice as an excuse for excluding people from the armed services?

Dr. Reid: If I were advocating the case to members of the armed services, I would first stop trying to portray them as a bunch of redneck, thick-skulled and prejudiced bigots, although I am not saying that my hon. Friend is doing that. It is not helpful when they live in particular circumstances, deprived of the right to leave. Any of us tonight can choose which room to leave. We can choose to go if we do not like the company that we are sleeping with. In the morning, we can remove ourselves from a position that we find offensive. We do not have to shower with people. Members of the armed forces cannot make those choices. Let us recognise at least that their views are of merit, even if we must weigh in the balance the great issue of civil liberties.
Do not let us pretend—I do not think for a minute that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has done so—that there is an easy or painless answer. Whatever decision is taken tonight or in the next Parliament, people will be hurt. Homosexuals or heterosexuals will be disappointed, perhaps angry. Whichever way the vote goes, one group or another will have their rights diminished, but, for the majority of hon. Members, it will not be a decision that is taken lightly because the curtailment of liberties or the loss of lives are considerations that rank highest in everything that we hold to be precious in the House. Whatever happens, the people who will then be asked by us to remain the ultimate defender of both those liberties and those lives will be the men and women of our British armed forces.

Mr. Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) on the sensible, measured and passionate way in which she introduced this important debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and thank him for the extraordinary courtesy that he has shown me during the time that we have been discussing what is a very difficult matter for the armed forces.
We have had a useful debate and many of the most important issues have been aired. I propose to deal with them. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for providing with their amendment this opportunity to have a debate that has been waiting in the wings for several months. I am sure that they will have a pretty good idea of what I am about to say.
The services' policy on homosexuality is hardly a secret, and nor are the reasons underpinning it. That said, I shall start, perhaps surprisingly, by saying that much of the new clause causes us very little difficulty. Much of it is already unnecessary. We announced in 1992 that we had accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on the previous Armed Forces Bill that homosexual acts which were legal in civilian life should no longer constitute offences under service law. The only extra condition was that the act should not involve the commission of a service offence such as the abuse of rank or other behaviour prejudicial to good order and discipline. That change in policy took immediate effect, but we were not able to make the necessary change to the legislation under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
It is difficult to see how the first part of the amendment adds to what Parliament has already achieved. However, we have to vote on the whole amendment and my hon. Friends have insinuated into the middle of their amendment a sentence that is designed to change the services' policy on the exclusion of homosexuals, contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee which has been considering the Bill. I shall concentrate the rest of my remarks on the Government's response to that issue.
The current policy of excluding homosexuals from the armed forces is not—I repeat, not—the result of a moral judgment. The prime concern of the armed forces is the maintenance of operational effectiveness and our policy derives from a practical assessment of the implications of homosexual orientation on military life. I do not believe that the services have a right to be different, but I firmly believe that they have a need to be different.
The conditions of military life are truly very different from civilian life. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) made that point very well. Service personnel are regularly required to live in extremely close proximity to one another in shared, single-sex accommodation with limited privacy and sometimes under stressful conditions. They may have to work for long hours in physically close quarters, sometimes for long periods under demanding circumstances. We believe that those conditions, together with the need for absolute trust and confidence between all ranks, require that the potentially disruptive influence of homosexual orientation and behaviour be excluded.
As hon. Members will recall, the legality of our policy was challenged in the High Court last year by four former members of the services who had been discharged on the ground of their homosexuality. The court found that the policy was lawful and that ruling has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. Just recently, the House of Lords has refused leave to appeal further, so the lawfulness of our policy has been further vindicated.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does hon. Gentleman accept that there is undoubtedly a considerable number of homosexuals within the armed forces now? He must know that to be a fact. How is that affecting operational efficiency now?

Mr. Soames: There may well be some homosexual personnel in the armed forces but they choose to keep that to themselves. That is a matter for them. [Interruption.] I will deal with that later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes mentioned the European Court. One can only speculate about what the European Court might say in several years' time because the issue has never been tested before it. We have considered the issue thoroughly, both as to what is required as a matter of national policy and the potential legal consequences. Our decision, in legal terms, is entirely respectable. We believe that our decision is the right one, and we will defend it robustly in any court.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: When considering their position, did the Government consult other Governments, in countries such as Australia, where the law has been changed in the way suggested in the amendment and where they apparently have not experienced the practical difficulties that have been referred to by those who oppose the amendment?

Mr. Soames: The answer is, yes, we did consult other Governments. I shall deal with that point later, because it is extremely important.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire mentioned costs and the cost to the taxpayer. The basis of all the various figures that are bandied about is uncertain. What is clear from the review report is the significant adverse effect that a change of policy would have on recruitment and retention—I urge the House to accept that that is true—with the considerable cost penalties that would result.
Several hon. Members mentioned agent provocateurs. Evidence was given to the Select Committee by witnesses in the Ministry of Defence that the service police are not


allowed to carry out agent provocateur activity when inquiring into allegations of homosexual activity. I wish to assure the House that I will not tolerate such action.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised the question of a code of conduct.

Sir Terence Higgins: On the use of resources, does my hon. Friend agree that it would not be a sensible, economic or efficient use of resources to identify those who are homosexual and who, in his own words, wish to keep it to themselves?

Mr. Soames: Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend.
While a new code of conduct might appear to be symmetrical in its effect on heterosexuals and homosexuals, it would not solve the problem of anticipated loss of cohesion or operational effectiveness caused by the knowledge or strong suspicion of the sexual identity of homosexual personnel. We do not believe that a code of conduct, no matter how rigorously enforced, would adequately address the issues of privacy or decency and it would not be possible or desirable to provide separate facilities for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: What the Minister has just said is tantamount to saying that this is gesture politics. I am one of the diminishing band of hon. Members who went through the whole of the second world war. There was no discrimination then. I was in no fewer than seven troop ships carrying men and women to the four corners of the globe to fight on behalf of the nation. There were no questions about homosexuality then. What the Government are saying is the height of hypocrisy. If there was a war tomorrow, there would be no discrimination against homosexuals or lesbians. They would be dragged in just as they were in 1939.

Mr. Soames: That was a splendid sally from the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will, if I may develop my argument in my own time.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked about other countries, and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has just done the same. The report went into great detail on the matter and covered many different countries, and we are aware that in some countries homosexuality is not a formal bar to service, although there may be restrictions on the areas in which homosexuals are employed and on their career progression.
However, we do not consider that the policies of other countries towards their armed forces are necessarily relevant to our own, as they may be influenced by other factors, such as conscription and domestic employment laws. The situation in other countries simply cannot be compared with that of our armed forces, which are, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland knows, wholly different from conscript armies and other foreign operators.
Several hon. Members have referred to comparisons with race and sex discrimination. However, the review report shows that homosexuality creates insoluble problems of decency and privacy, as race and gender do

not. I shall quote an extract from a report by General Colin Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in America:
Unlike race or gender, sexuality is not a benign trait. It is manifested in behaviour. While it would be decidedly biased to assume certain behaviours based on gender or membership in a racial group, the same is not true for sexuality. We have successfully mixed rich and poor, black and white, male and female, but open homosexuality in units is not just the acceptance of benign characteristics such as colour or gender or background. It involves matters of privacy and human sexuality that, in our judgment, if allowed to exist openly in the military, would affect the cohesion and well-being of the force. It asks us to deal with fundamental issues that the society at large has not yet been able to deal with".

Mr. Betts: rose—

Mr. Soames: No, I must get on.
I now wish to return—

Mr. Betts: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
I wish now to return to the subject of Great Britain. The High Court recommended that we should review our policy in the light of changing social circumstances, and of the experience of other countries where homosexuality is not a formal bar to service. Accordingly, the internal review was carried out.
The review took into account the policies and practices of overseas armed forces, the views of serving personnel, the advice of senior military commanders and the full range of evidence presented in the report. The report of the assessment was placed in the Library on 4 March.
After detailed consideration of the available evidence, the assessment team concluded that homosexuality remained incompatible with service life, if the armed forces were to be maintained at their full potential operational effectiveness. The team recommended that there should be no change in current policy. My Department has accepted that recommendation and, as I said earlier, the Select Committee, after much careful deliberation, agreed that there should be no change in the policy.
Both the evidence contained in the assessment team's detailed and thorough report, and that given in open session to the Select Committee, show that the presence of openly homosexual men and women in the armed forces would have an adverse effect on morale and unit cohesion.

Mr. Betts: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
That presence would also affect operational effectiveness. That we cannot risk, and we shall not accept it.
Uncertainty and suspicion about the sexual orientation of fellow service personnel are just as likely to cause unease, polarise relationships and disrupt unit cohesion as overt homosexuality.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames: No, I will not. I must get on.
It would be quite wrong to ignore the strongly held views of the majority of service men and women that the admission of homosexuals would have a detrimental effect on operational effectiveness, and I shall not do so. In the face of all the evidence presented by my Department, of substantial submissions both oral and written from those who wished to change the policy, and also of the evidence that it gathered privately, the Select Committee concluded that the policy should continue.
If collective professional judgments about operational effectiveness are simply to be defined away in advance as irrelevant prejudice unless they fit abstract principles of equal treatment, service men and women will be silenced and disfranchised by a decision that would affect them more than anyone else. That would both be morally questionable and put at risk the cohesion and fighting power of our armed forces.

Mr. Tony Banks: Rubbish.

9 pm

Mr. Soames: It is not rubbish.
It is significant and perhaps inevitable that the most widely reported spokesman of the homosexual movement, Sir Ian McKellen, took exactly that attitude. He said:
Why are Ministers even asking the military?
The not so hidden agenda of those who want to change Ministry of Defence policy is to steamroller aside the judgments, experience and wishes of the military.
Although we have no desire to discriminate against homosexuals, or indeed against any other minority, the Government will not capitulate to such doctrinaire attitudes. What is special about the military is the fact that we expect them to exhibit commitment and self sacrifice beyond that of any other professional group and, if need be, to sacrifice their lives. They put their trust in the Government and it would be immoral, as well as operationally highly detrimental, to overrule or ignore them.
Let me make it clear—this is not about homophobia in the armed forces. Rather it is a clear indication of the ability of service men and women to differentiate between their own personal views on homosexuality—which are often tolerant and sympathetic—and what they nevertheless perceive to be the effect of homosexuality in a military environment. I know that no Member of the House will vote on the new clause without having carefully weighed up the issues. These are not simple, since they summon up an apparent conflict between individual rights and wishes—which none of us lightly sets aside—and the moral cohesion, effectiveness and fighting power of the armed forces.
The services of this country are very special, and they are a unique and extraordinary asset to our nation. They serve us faithfully and well, and they are—by and large—men and women of a quality not found in any other institution in the land. The extraordinarily gallant record of our armed forces—in the Falklands, through 25 years of exceptional gallantry and skill on the streets and countryside of Northern Ireland, in the Gulf, and today in Bosnia, Rwanda and Angola—is beyond compare.
My overriding duty must be to maintain the effectiveness of our armed forces. In my view, that should also be the prime concern of the House of Commons. In

my view, the armed forces have earned the right to be allowed to get on with the job they do so well and not be bludgeoned out of the standards, traditions and esprit de corps that has won Great Britain every war in which we have engaged since 1812. That being the case, I strongly urge the Committee to reject the new clause.

Mrs. Currie: This has been a superb debate, showing the House of Commons at its very best. I would like to thank those hon. Members from both sides of the House who have expressed their support for the new clause. The matter is already before the European Court of Human Rights, which we helped set up four decades ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about democracy?"' I say to my hon. Friends that I agree with them. I would rather that this House decided on the issue. The Committee has the power to do so, and it should decide tonight.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 188.

Division No. 125]
[9.07 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Fyfe, Maria


Alton, David
Galloway, George


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Garrett, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gerrard, Neil


Barnes, Harry
Godman, Dr Norman A


Barron, Kevin
Godsiff, Roger


Battle, John
Gordon, Mildred


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bennett, Andrew F
Harvey, Nick


Bermingham, Gerald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Betts, Clive
Hayes, Jerry


Boateng, Paul
Heppell, John


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Burden, Richard
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Byers, Stephen
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jowell, Tessa


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Carrington, Matthew
Kirkwood, Archy


Chidgey, David
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Loyden, Eddie


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McFall, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mackinlay, Andrew


Coffey, Ann
Maclennan, Robert


Corbett, Robin
McMaster, Gordon


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Corston, Jean
Madden, Max


Cousins, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Meacher, Michael


Darling, Alistair
Michael, Alun


Davidson, Ian
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Milburn, Alan


Denham, John
Miller, Andrew


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Dowd, Jim
Mullin, Chris


Etherington, Bill
Murphy, Paul


Fatchett, Derek
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pike, Peter L


Fisher, Mark
Pope, Greg


Foster, Don (Bath)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Fraser, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)






Primarolo, Dawn
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Soley, Clive


Rendel, David
Straw, Jack


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Timms, Stephen


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tyler, Paul


Salmond, Alex
Vaz, Keith


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Watson, Mike


Short, Clare
Wray, Jimmy


Simpson, Alan



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Andrew (Oxford East)
Mr. Tony Banks and


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Mr. Harry Cohen.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
George, Bruce


Alexander, Richard
Gill, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Amess, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arbuthnot, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gorst, Sir John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Baldry, Tony
Grylls, Sir Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Bellingham, Henry
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Hargreaves, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Harris, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hawkins, Nick


Bowis, John
Hawksley, Warren


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Heald, Oliver


Brandreth, Gyles
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Brazier, Julian
Hendry, Charles


Bright, Sir Graham
Horam, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Jack, Michael


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Key, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cash, William
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Coe, Sebastian
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Colvin, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Congdon, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Conway, Derek
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Legg, Barry


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Couchman, James
Lewis, Terry


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Dixon, Don
Luff, Peter


Dover, Den
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
MacKay, Andrew


Dunn, Bob
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Durant, Sir Anthony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Madel, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Malone, Gerald


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mans, Keith


Evennett, David
Marlow, Tony


Faber, David
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fabricant, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Merchant, Piers


Fishburn, Dudley
Mills, Iain


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Moss, Malcolm


French, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Sir Michael


Garnier, Edward
Nicholls, Patrick





Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stephen, Michael


Norris, Steve
Streeter, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sweeney, Walter


Ottaway, Richard
Sykes, John


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thomason, Roy


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Rathbone, Tim
Turner, Dennis


Reid, Dr John
Viggers, Peter


Richards, Rod
Walden, George


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Robathan, Andrew
Ward, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Watts, John



Wells, Bowen


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whittingdale, John


Sackville, Tom
Widdecombe, Ann


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Willetts, David


Shersby, Sir Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Snape, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Soames, Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Spellar, John
Yeo, Tim


Spencer, Sir Derek
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)



Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spink, Dr Robert
Mr. Simon Burns and


Steen, Anthony
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Title

Amendment made: No. 80, in line 5, leave out `fingerprinting of and insert

`taking of fingerprints and samples from'.—[Mr. Soames.]

Bill reported, with amendments.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Soames.]

Mr. Cohen: There are issues that show that, contrary to what the Minister would have us believe, all is not fine in the armed forces. I shall concentrate on one example—racism. The Commission for Racial Equality recently issued a report on the Household Cavalry, about which there was subsequently a formal investigation. That report has not been mentioned during the Bill's passage, but it should have been properly dealt with by the Minister.
I have a summary of the report. It points out that the Household Cavalry ran its own mobile display team, which visited primarily small rural towns that were
distant from the main centres of ethnic minority population.
The Household Cavalry recruited through regimental associations that tended
to reach only white people linked through family and other connections with former members of the Regiment.
Its recruiters were also largely located
away from centres of ethnic minority populations.


The Household Cavalry recruited purely a white force, which became apparent in the number—it was nil—of its ethnic minority recruits. The summary states:
There were about 3,000 ethnic minority applicants to the Army between 1989 and 1994, but none of them were recruited to the Household Cavalry.
The weight of evidence was that some at least of these had been steered away to other regiments.
A key point is:
The Inspector of Recruiting said that recruiters would send ethnic minority recruits to local regiments instead of to the Household Division where they would have a hard time.
The summary goes on to state:
A member of the MDT had said that the Household Cavalry did not recruit ethnic minorities.
An ethnic minority applicant was deterred by others telling him not to go into the Guards because 'they hate blacks'.
One ethnic minority recruit to the Household Cavalry in the mid 1980s had experienced a 'barrage of racism' during his training and afterwards.
In the year after the CRE launched the investigation, there were three ethnic minority recruits to the Household Cavalry, reversing the total absence in the preceding five years.
Later, the summary states:
The Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers officer in command had passed the content of this briefing on to the warrant officer second in command, and was not surprised to be told by him that he had got the posting changed because"—
Corporal Malcolm, who subsequently made the complaint—
was black.
The CRE concludes:
that the Commanding Officer had, in effect, given an unlawful discriminatory instruction to the officer in command of the REME detachment.
That was a scathing report on the racism existing in the Household Cavalry.
I know that the British Army, through the Ministry of Defence, is now committed to a five-year programme of measures to promote racial equality, which is to be implemented in close liaison with the CRE, but that two-year examination of the Household Cavalry found that there had been racial discrimination in recruitment and transfers, and racial abuse and harassment in individual cases.
The Ministry of Defence almost had racial equality measures imposed on it. Only after discussions did it agree to introduce them voluntarily. It had to sign a formal agreement that it would.
I put it to the Minister that the report was damning, the action is now extremely late and implementation of racial equality measures in the Army should be treated as a matter of urgency. The same applies to the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, which should fall into line quickly with action, programmes and policies of their own to end racial discrimination. I know that, if that does not happen, the Ministry risks having a non-discrimination notice imposed on it next year. It is important that it implements racial equality measures. In its press release in response to the report on the Household Cavalry, the Campaign for Racial Equality said:
we can only regret the length of time it has taken the Armed Forces to adopt these measures.

There have been appalling cases of racism in the armed forces. I have examples of plenty of them. An article in The Guardian of 5 March gave many. A man called Scott Enion, who fought in the Gulf with the British forces, is now considering taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights because of the racism that he encountered. He said in The Guardian:
I wouldn't recommend the Army to any young black person … Lots of people just told me to shrug off the abuse but these problems will continue until the Army makes racist behaviour a specific offence. No amount of publicity is going to attract black people to the Army until the top ranks start clamping down on it. At the moment, they are allowed to get away with it and most blacks know the Army is a racist institution.
Although the Minister claims that the Government are out to recruit more people from the ethnic minorities—indeed, there is a crisis in recruitment—the number of recruits from ethnic minorities dropped by 25 per cent. last year. The figures for 1994–95 show that the total was just 1 per cent. in the Navy, 0.9 per cent. in the Army and 0.5 per cent. in the RAF. That compares with an ethnic minority population of 6 per cent. in Britain as a whole.
There really is a danger. As we saw in the previous debate on homosexuals and lesbians in the armed forces, the Army does not want to comply with standards that are accepted as standard elsewhere in the country or to respect civil liberties. In his reply to the debate on new clause, the Minister quoted Colin Powell of the United States forces as saying that discrimination against homosexuals was different from racism, but it is not different in relation to how people are treated by the armed forces. In both cases, the armed forces say that the standards that apply in the community at large do not apply to them. By adopting that approach, the armed services run a risk of becoming a nation within a nation and not properly reflecting the society they serve. That is a dangerous state of affairs in a democratic country.
The report on the Household Cavalry was scathing. The Conservative Government have been in power for 17 years, but they have made no attempt to tackle racism in the armed forces until now—and they are doing so only because the issue was forced upon them by the Commission for Racial Equality.
The Minister mentioned General Colin Powell. The top military man in the United States is a black man. No black man is anywhere near a position of power in the British Army. A black person in the United Kingdom armed forces is probably lucky to reach the rank of sergeant.
The Minister and the Government have displayed enormous complacency in respect of racism in the armed forces. It has continued for 17 years and it has been exposed by the CRE report on the Household Cavalry. I suspect that it will be left to a Labour Government—hopefully, in the not-too-distant future—to tackle racism in the armed forces so that they represent all the people in our nation.

Mr. Viggers: The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill is a most interesting Committee on which to serve. It was a great honour to be its Chairman for the second time in 10 years.
Paragraph 4 of the Select Committee report, which I wrote, states:
It has been the policy of successive Governments to preserve consistency, as far as appropriate … between civilian and military law.


However, there is some tension:
Civilian law may reflect changing social attitudes, and these have in recent years involved some relaxation of the stricter discipline and formal personal relationships of former generations. On the other hand, the Armed Forces derive strength from their structured environment and from military discipline … The Committee has been very conscious of the serious and sensitive issues involved in deciding when military law and practice should be consistent with civilian law".
There have been a number of important issues for the Select Committee to consider, some of which are outside the scope of the Bill. We took evidence over nine sittings and considered a wealth of written material. We did more work and received more paper than any previous Committee, to produce a more substantial Bill.
I should like to thank the Committee members who helped our work to proceed swiftly and in a spirit of co-operation and good-humour. That was reflected in the need for only one Division, which was also good-humoured, forced by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George).
I welcome the significant improvements to the courts martial system in the Bill, which introduces a greater element of independence.
The future of the royal naval college, Greenwich excited much interest and local concern. As a loyal Conservative, it is better for me not to look at the starting point and the narrative, but to consider the conclusion, which is immensely satisfactory and better than we could have dreamt of at the beginning of our deliberations.
I am grateful for the constructive attitude of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who took a personal interest in the issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces more than met our concerns with an amendment proposed in Committee which was made to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), a colleague on the North Atlantic Assembly, referred to the report by the Commission for Racial Equality into allegations of racism in the Household Cavalry. Let me reassure him about the bilateral nature of our approach to the Bill by telling him that, when I discovered the Commission for Racial Equality was about to produce its report, I suggested to the Committee—which readily agreed—that we should postpone our deliberation of matters relating to racial equality until it had been published. We then called witnesses from the Ministry of Defence and made absolutely sure that it was committed to the policy that it had signed with the Commission for Racial Equality.
On Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that, despite all good intentions, recruitment into the armed forces of those in ethnic minorities had fallen. I am convinced, however, that the Commission for Racial Equality and the Ministry of Defence have reached a firm and clear agreement. Although it is a five-year programme, it will not end after five years; it will commence now and be active immediately. We have received assurances from the Ministry of Defence that it will provide a definitive statement of its position before the next sitting of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill in four to five years time. That is the long-stop position, and there will be positive action in the meantime.
Some people will no doubt be disappointed by the Committee's conclusions on current policy on homosexuality. After studying the findings of the MOD's comprehensive review and talking to many personnel across the ranks in all three services, as well as to serving personnel in other armed forces, it was impossible to conclude other than that the presence of openly homosexual personnel would cause significant difficulties for commanding officers and other ranks. The risks to operational effectiveness are real. Unless and until that alters, any policy change would be difficult to justify.
Having spoken to representatives of the armed forces of other countries, I am not persuaded that any other country has achieved a more effective system of rules than ours. There has been an assumption in much of the debate in the House that everything is inexorably moving one way—a kind of ratchet—towards liberality without firm, clear standards. In evidence from gay rights activists, we were told that prejudice is immoral. A large number of people in this country and in the armed forces believe that not only prejudice, but homosexuality, is immoral. It may be that the tide is not moving all in one direction.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Is that the hon. Gentleman's opinion?

Mr. Viggers: I have expressed a point of view that I believe to be widely held in this country. I do not believe that the view is universally held that the movement is all one way and that movement towards liberality is inexorable. That is my personal view; it is not expressed in any other representational capacity.
Consideration of a measure such as the Armed Forces Bill by a Select Committee every five years is a useful way of keeping a check on matters relating to discipline in the armed forces, and we were of course happy to commend the Bill to the House.
I want to give three final votes of thanks. Two are serious and one may sound slightly frivolous. I want to express, first, thanks for the work contributed by the Ministry of Defence. A year or more ago, the MOD set up a team ably led by David Woodhead to deal specifically with the Select Committee on the Bill. That team, and the Ministry as a whole, responded quickly, efficiently and generously to our requests for information and facilities—such as travel and the opportunity to meet forces personnel. I am sure that the Committee would want me to give the most generous vote of thanks to the Ministry and all its staff. I should be grateful if the Minister would make sure that those thanks are conveyed in the most suitable manner.
The Committee would wish me to thank also Chris Shaw, who is the second Clerk to the Defence Committee but who was nominated as the Clerk to the Select Committee on the Bill as his first clerkship of a Select Committee. He has carried his job through exceptionally well, not only in briefing me and other members of the Committee, but in preparing the draft report, which was first-class.
Finally, I give perhaps a more frivolous vote of thanks to the United States 4th Cavalry for providing two Blackhawk helicopters, which got four members of the Committee back from Tuzla to Split in time to catch our Royal Air Force VC10—without which we would not necessarily have had a Government majority in the final stages of the Committee. I thank the US army air force for its contribution to the Committee's work.

Mr. George: Having heard those last remarks of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I am not so sure that I would have been happy to join him in a Blackhawk if I had known that it was to do service to the Government Whips Office. However, our journey was expedited by the cavalry, who came to the rescue—leaving a rather forlorn American-built, but RAF-owned, Chinook on the runway in eastern Tuzla. I experienced some horror in Bosnia when I switched on an old television set and saw Question Time live. That was probably the worst thing I saw during four days in the former Yugoslavia.
Having heard the debate of the past two hours, I have mixed feelings about volunteering to serve on the Select Committee. The procedure reinforced my view that a Select Committee approach is preferable to a Standing Committee approach. Although not everyone will agree with the consensual approach that we are obliged to take on defence issues, I am pleased that the consensus has largely returned on most security issues in the House and, to a great extent, in the country as a whole.
I am sorry that the Select Committee on Defence has not assumed responsibility for dealing with this quinquennial legislation, but we did the next best thing by having four members of that Select Committee, including the Chairman, on the Select Committee on the Bill. The combined approach of part Select Committee and part Standing Committee allows the special Select Committee to do what cannot be done in a Standing Committee environment, which is almost invariably non-consensual. It allows the Select Committee to discuss in detail the rationale, if there is one, behind a series of policies emanating from the Ministry of Defence.
By taking the Select Committee approach, we can exert more influence on the Ministry of Defence instead of allowing a Minister, with his aides behind him and his loyalists endorsing him, to railroad any old policy through a Standing Committee. That appears to be the normal approach to many pieces of legislation. It is a shame that the Government and the Opposition do not connive more frequently to approach legislation in a way more like the Select Committees.
The Select Committee was able to exert an influence over the daft policy of selling or leasing Greenwich naval college and, in that sense, the whole exercise was worth while. It was also very important that we provided a forum for discussion of the Commission for Racial Equality's report on the Household Cavalry, which put more pressure than there would otherwise have been on the Ministry of Defence. As someone who has served for many years on the Defence Committee, I recall time and again trying to enthuse the Ministry of Defence, through the Committee, about ethnic monitoring. The Ministry had its fall coming to it. Remarkably, it was not a parliamentary Committee that put pressure on the Government; it required an external body—the Commission for Racial Equality. The Select Committee provided a forum for that report and never was a fall more deserved, swifter or more full than that embarrassing climbdown by the Government. It really taught them.
The Minister has, on previous occasions, questioned my knowledge of military history. He said that we had not lost a war since 1802, but I must remind him that that war

was a draw as opposed to a loss. For a military defeat, the Minister needs to go back much further. We lost several battles around 1802, but the war did not end in defeat.

Mr. Viggers: As the hon. Gentleman is an historian, can he remind me what happened in South Africa at the beginning of this century?

Mr. George: South Africa was a dishonourable draw: it was not a military defeat.
When our endeavours began, the Ministry of Defence got off to a bad start. It was forced on to the back foot within about three minutes of the beginning of our deliberations on the issue of consolidation of legislation. The previous Committee had strongly recommended that single-service legislation needed to be examined more closely and tidied up.
To our embarrassment, and even more to the embarrassment of the Ministry of Defence, the witnesses, who were not responsible for the policy failure, had to explain to the Committee why, despite starting with the MOD and trying to follow up the recommendations of the previous Select Committee, their movement and enthusiasm came to a dramatic halt. They had to appear before the previous Select Committee to explain why they had done nothing to follow and take up the recommendations of the Committee before it. I hope that, when the Committee is re-formed four and a half years from now, there will be substantial adherence to our recommendations.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on a courageous speech shortly before the final Division. It is not easy, in such circumstances, to make such a speech from the Opposition Benches. It was not easy to support the new clause in the Lobby. We who gave our support may suffer the consequences for our position and our honesty. I voted willingly on the issue, as I did in the Select Committee.
I am sure that the Minister will not agree with me when I say that everything that has been done in this place has provided a stay of execution for present policy. Having read the advice of the Ministry's legal adviser on the likely consequences of the European Court of Human Rights when considering the MOD's policy, I believe that it is almost inevitable that the line that the majority of the House has taken, and the line taken by the MOD, will become increasingly difficult to sustain.
The report commissioned by the MOD contained a proposal, although it is not presented as such, that might be seen as a fall-back position if all else fails. It was not a version of the United States policy, but one in that general direction. I am sure that the Minister will not tell the House that the Government are even considering a fall-back position. He and his fellow Ministers will sustain the MOD's line vigorously in the European Court of Human Rights or in any legal or media forums in which anyone may be obliged to speak or appear.
If there is any furtiveness, I hope that serious consideration will be given, as it was in the United States, to commissioning a study similar to that pursued by the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica on what could be done within the military to prepare a way for an eventual change in policy. That may seem unpalatable now, but I feel that serious consideration must be given to such an approach.
On reflection, I am delighted, despite my initial reservations, to have participated in the Committee


proceedings. As our Chairman said, the staff of the Select Committee were excellent. We had good relationships and there were some amusing contretemps with the witnesses. We were all seeking a common objective—a legal framework within which men and women may serve within the armed forces. I do not patronise them when I say that they are probably the best service men and women in the world.
Those service men and women may be criticised. Lee Clegg was referred to by some of my hon. Friends, who implied that, somehow, he was a murderer. That is insulting nonsense. It was also implied that the men in Cyprus who besmirched the reputation of Britain's armed forces were in some way not an aberration. They were an aberration.
I was angered by that debate, because I have seen British soldiers in the most appalling conditions throughout the world—in the Falklands, in some barracks in Britain and certainly in Northern Ireland. They are men and women who offer their services to the country in a way that few hon. Members can comprehend. There are few people who understand what young and not so young men and women sacrifice in order to earn not a miserable but an unsatisfactory salary.
I am not making a political point. Those men and women are experiencing the traumas of a reorientation of our armed forces following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. We should see as typical those people, not the men who did such damage to the reputation of the armed forces, the Ministry of Defence and the British in Cyprus and throughout the world. We can be justly proud of the men and women who are serving us.
I hope that I shall be in a position to serve on the Select Committee that considers the next Bill five years from now. I hope that even more members of the Defence Committee will serve on that Committee, which showed that it is possible to develop a common approach to serious issues.
I hope that the magnanimity that I showed in not pressing amendment No. 81 to a Division, when I would clearly have won, so allowing the Minister to avoid experiencing defeat within three hours of the beginning of the debate, will be reciprocated by the Minister's coming before the Defence Committee with an open mind and listening seriously to our arguments.
I hope that the spirit of tolerance that has been shown by some Opposition Members will be duly rewarded with a compromise that at the moment is not evident. I hope that the consensual spirit that the Minister has experienced so recently will be continued, not in this Committee, which has now ceased to exist, but in the Defence Committee which will pick up a number of issues that were raised by the Select Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Michael Stephen: This House of Commons has this evening made a momentous decision in refusing to overturn the British armed forces' long-standing policy that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. That is a delicate matter upon which many hon. Members have held and expressed genuine and passionate views on both sides.
We decided that question after careful deliberation. It was one of the best debates that I have ever heard in the House. All points of view were considered. We drew upon

our own experiences and we listened to the experiences of other hon. Members, often eloquently expressed. I was particularly impressed by the contribution to the debate of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).
One of the most important points in the debate was that the question had to be decided according to United Kingdom conditions. We were referred to the experiences of other countries. It is clear that other countries, including other European countries, have their own cultures and their armed forces have their own traditions, and that what succeeds or fails in their countries and in their armed forces may not necessarily be a good guide to what we should do here.
But having made the decision on the basis of United Kingdom conditions, and after careful deliberation in this sovereign Parliament, I have one important concern, and that is that the whole exercise may have been completely academic. The European Court of Human Rights, we are told, is going to overrule the decision.
During the debate, reference was made not only to that court but to the European Court of Justice. The two institutions are very different, and there is in particular an important difference between them in respect of the question that we have just decided. Defence matters are specifically excluded from the competence of the European Union, and the European Court of Justice would therefore have no right to decide whether homosexuality should be allowed in Britain's armed forces.
I think that it would be outrageous if the European Court of Justice used equal opportunities legislation to seek to intervene in defence matters, which are specifically excluded from its competence. I find it extraordinary that the British Government conceded the point in relation to pregnant service women, and I hope that they will never again concede that the European Court of Justice has any jurisdiction in respect of defence.
We are bound by the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights because we are signatories to the European convention on human rights. Defence matters are not exempted from that court's jurisdiction, as they are from the competence of the European Union. It is therefore open to the court, when the case comes before it—as it undoubtedly will—to overrule the decision that we have made, after careful deliberation, in this United Kingdom House of Commons. If it did so, that would be an extremely important constitutional matter.
The European Court of Human Rights exists by virtue of a convention signed at the end of the second world war to protect the peoples of Europe from the gross abuses of human rights that were perpetrated during and before that war. It was not signed in order to allow a foreign court to interfere at will in this country's domestic affairs, and to overrule the will of this sovereign Parliament. The House must warn the European Court of Human Rights of the danger into which it may fall. It should be fully aware of that danger before deciding this case, and it should be aware that this sovereign Parliament has the right—although we do not wish to exercise it—to give notice, under article 65 of the convention, of its intention to withdraw from that convention if need be.

Mr. Soames: I warmly endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), and thank him for being such an admirable Chairman. I join him in


paying tribute to the Clerk and the Committee for all the work they did. As the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. Bruce) said, we had a very good cross-party debate. We dealt with important points; Bills such as this are important. As everyone agrees, it is important for the armed forces to know that justice is not only done but seen to be done, and I believe that their affairs were well investigated and looked after by the Committee.
I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport in warmly thanking the Ministry of Defence Bill team, the parliamentary branch of the MOD, my heroic parliamentary private secretary—my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins)—and all who contributed to the superb job that the Committee has done.
The Bill both preserves and improves the system of discipline in the armed forces, and I warmly commend it to the House. We have settled many important matters. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said; no one could gainsay the important points he made. The hon. Member for Walsall, South also made important points.
Let me reassure the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that we take the question of the Commission for Racial Equality very seriously. Some of what he said was very wide of the mark. It is not in our interests not to encourage all the recruits that we can get, wherever they come from; we need more, not fewer recruits from ethnic minorities in the armed forces, and they are very welcome. If the hon. Gentleman can offer me helpful suggestions as to how we can better achieve that, we shall pay considerable attention to them.
We thank all who took part in the Bill's passage, and to our armed forces, wherever they may be—in Bosnia, Saudi Arabia or Turkey—we send our warmest wishes, and our thanks for all that they do for this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Dr. Joe Hendron: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House a proposal that threatens one of Northern Ireland's most respected and renowned hospitals with an international reputation for innovation and research. It is the Royal maternity hospital, Belfast, which is an integral part of the Royal hospitals trust and is facing possible closure. Access to and from the four hospitals is simplicity itself and they are only about 150 m from each other. That is the geography, and when that is understood one can appreciate why over 85 per cent. of Northern Ireland's population can reach the Royal hospitals inside an hour.
In a typical year, one family in three in Northern Ireland is seen in some department of the Royal hospitals. I emphasise that I speak not just as a politician but as a medical practitioner who has spent all his medical life in west Belfast where these great hospitals are situated.
I shall explain why I have asked for the debate. The Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, acting on behalf of the Minister, established a committee, the acute hospitals reorganisation project, under the chairmanship of Dr. James McKenna, a former chief medical officer for Northern Ireland. The committee is considering ways to eliminate unnecessary duplication of services by the Royal hospitals trust and Belfast City hospital, Northern Ireland's two largest hospitals.
The committee, which includes representatives from both hospitals, was asked to make proposals as to how services could best be redeployed between the two to make the best possible use of resources in terms of specialist staff, accommodation and, presumably, finance because, inevitably, it was hoped that these proposals would bring about some savings in the Northern Ireland health service.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Dr. Hendron: On the face of it, the establishment of the committee with its representation from the Eastern health board and various other interested parties seemed a good idea. However, many people, myself included, ask why the committee's remit should have been restricted to the services of these two great hospitals in isolation from other hospitals, particularly those within the Greater Belfast area which also duplicate services that are provided by the two hospitals in the centre.
In terms of fairness, let alone economies of scale, it seems odd in the extreme that not one but three other acute hospitals within 10 miles of Belfast city centre are not included in the current review. I am grateful to the Minister for being present for this debate. First, he should immediately announce a further review of hospital services not just for Greater Belfast but for the whole of Northern Ireland. Until such a review has been completed, no hospital should be considered for closure.
Of course I must deal with reality. Today a proposal, which will shortly be presented to the Minister, suggests that the maternity services of the Jubilee hospital,


which is part of the Belfast City hospital trust and the Royal hospitals trust, should be brought together in one unit in three yet-to-be-refurbished floors of the multi-storey tower block of the City hospital. That proposal has attracted almost universal opposition.
I shall make some important facts clear before proceeding further. Both the Royal hospitals trust and the Belfast City hospital trust are committed in principle to the work of James McKenna's committee, but that does not mean blind acceptance of all the proposals, especially those in the most recent document called "Seeking Balance" which has been issued by the committee.
The Royal, for example, with some reluctance, agrees with the proposal to move its renowned breast care clinic, the first in the United Kingdom to receive a charter mark, to a new location in Belfast City hospital. That is because the Royal trust believes that, if Belfast City hospital is to be the cancer centre for Northern Ireland, as appears to be the case, it is better for women to have the breast clinic located there. The Royal trust, however, is unanimous in opposing the proposal, which would close its maternity hospital and move it to the city hospital site.
The Government are on record as having the best interests of the national health service at heart. Understandably, they advocate change, but surely only where change is for the better. They advocate change when clear economies are to be made. Those are worthy ideals, to which we would all subscribe. If the Minister agrees, however, with the proposal from the "Seeking Balance" document about maternity services, he will bring about changes in Belfast which, far from protecting or even enhancing the service, will weaken it and, almost unbelievably, will cost more to provide.
I said earlier that I speak both as a politician and as a family doctor, but let me assure hon. Members that my views are not simply those of a concerned doctor. The opposition to the proposal is echoed by astonished clinicians throughout Northern Ireland and by medical experts throughout the UK. Let me quote some of the things that those learned people have been saying.
The Provincial Paediatric Specialty Group, representing doctors throughout Northern Ireland, said about the proposal:
It was uniformly agreed that the proposed move would give rise to considerable difficulties in the care of the sick newborn. These babies may require the urgent attention of a range of specialist services and specialised laboratory services. On the site of the Royal Hospitals Trust there is easy access to the specialists and associated facilities. A move of the maternity services in isolation would compromise the care of the sick baby.
The chairman of the division of paediatrics from the Homefirst community unit in Ballymena said:
Members were amazed and concerned at such a proposal as it was felt there could be no medical justification for it. Movement to Belfast City Hospital would isolate the neonate from the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. This cannot be in the best interests of the sick baby. The paediatricians in the Northern Health and Social Services Board feel that the proposed move would be a retrograde step moving from a unified to a split service.
The Craigavon area hospital group trust said:
Our concern as referring doctors, to the neo-natal services is that they should have cardiac, surgical, neurosurgical, nephrology or ophthalmology requirements and that there is no unnecessary delay in obtaining those for the neonates.

All those services are available only within the Royal hospitals trust.
Erne hospital in Enniskillen said:
In any redeployment of facilities for caring for small acutely ill babies, it is most important to so arrange affairs that all necessary facilities are available within one unit".
As I said, in Northern Ireland, those facilities are available only in the Royal hospitals trust.
The paediatric sub-committee of the area medical advisory committee of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board said:
The Sub-committee is of the view that there are clear disadvantages to this proposal for the management of babies requiring multiple specialist input. The Sub-committee can see no advantage to babies being treated on the Belfast City Hospital site. The proposal is in conflict with guidance from the British Paediatric Association and the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. There is no support for this move by any body of paediatrician in Belfast or anywhere in Northern Ireland. The committee unanimously recommend that the Regional Neonatal Service remains at the Royal site in close proximity to all specialist paediatric services available only at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children.
The National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland said:
The National Board is strongly of the view that maternity, neonatology and children's services should be on the same site, as a significant number of neonates require the services of the Sick Children's Hospital within the first days of life.
The paediatricians at the Ulster, North Down and Ards hospitals trust said:
We are concerned at the proposal that the Regional Neo-natal Services should now move to the Tower Block at the Belfast City Hospital. It has been our understanding over the years as clinicians that to provide the best such service it has been important and will remain important to have our regional neo-natal and paediatric system specialists on the same site to most efficiently meet the complex needs of these babies. To separate the neo-natal service to the Belfast City Hospital would clearly be a clinically poorer service than the present excellent one.
The Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children is in close proximity to the neo-natal unit and the Royal maternity hospital. Its staff said:
The proposals to dislocate the relationship between the tertiary maternity and neo-natal services from the paediatric specialties and the regional cardiac and neurosurgical services on the Royal Hospitals site receives no support. To rearrange these services so that they are separated not only by physical distance, but also by the busiest dual carriageway in the province is almost certainly going to reduce the quality of the service available to newborn babies and will result in delayed diagnosis and treatment and consequent increases in morbidity and mortality.
The staff of the Royal maternity hospital said:
It is envisaged that all the facilities for a regional service can be provided within the present Royal Maternity Hospital. 'Seeking Balance' proposes the removal of obstetrics, gynaecology and neonatology from the Royal site. We submit that firstly the quality of care to the women and the babies of Belfast and Northern Ireland cannot but deteriorate as a result of this move and secondly, facilities can be provided on the Royal site to enable the highest quality of effective care to be maintained.
The Western Health and Social Services board in Londonderry said:
We consider it clinically inappropriate given the regional nature of some of the maternity/neonatal provision that this should be separated from related back-up facilities such as the paediatric surgical component. We find the proposal surprising given the recent significant refurbishments which there have been at the Royal Maternity Hospital. Amalgamation on the Royal Maternity site could be achieved more quickly and at significantly less cost.


One clinical difficulty related to the use of the tower block option is that there would inevitably be greater time delays for mothers arriving in advanced labour or with emergency difficulties and who need emergency clinical assessment. That is currently coped with easily in the layout that exists at the Royal maternity hospital, but it is likely to be much more difficult to achieve where a maternity unit is placed on three floors of the tower block.
I want to make a few important points, to which I know that the Minister will pay particular attention. There are about 50 calls per month by paediatric specialists to sick babies in the neonatal unit of the Royal maternity hospital. The Jubilee maternity hospital refers 15 babies per year to the neonatal unit of the Royal and, in addition to that, there are about 70 to 80 babies a year from throughout Northern Ireland. It does not take minutes, which is what it says in the McKenna report, to transfer a baby from the Jubilee to the Royal—it takes three quarters of an hour from the moment a decision is taken to transfer a baby until it arrives at the Royal.
Targeting social need is an important part of Government policy. The Secretary of State refers to the policy of targeting social need being implemented in areas such as north and west Belfast—areas of great deprivation. The Royal group of hospitals is the biggest employer in west Belfast. Therefore, to threaten its future is gross and rank hypocrisy.
Opposition to the proposal to close or transfer the Royal maternity hospital comes from all staff levels in the Royal, including midwives, nurses and consultants as well as from trade unions and the West Belfast health monitoring committee. The people of the Protestant Shankill road and of the Catholic Falls road, as well as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), are totally against the closure of the Royal maternity hospital.
I could add many more quotations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I could tell you about the tens of thousands of people throughout the city and the rest of Northern Ireland who have signed petitions against the proposal. I could tell you about communities united as never before in the joint aim of protecting and maintaining the best possible clinical service for mothers and babies.
In the national health service beyond Northern Ireland, health authorities throughout the United Kingdom have been unanimous in saying that where possible they would wish to provide paediatric and maternity services side by side on one site. In Belfast, within the Royal hospitals trust, that sought-after arrangement already exists, yet it is under threat from a committee set up by the Minister and the Department of Health and Social Services.
There is another aspect to the ludicrous and ill-conceived proposal to move maternity services from the Royal into the Belfast city hospital tower block—that of finance. The Belfast city hospital is a modern building less than 10 years old, yet because of its design, if all the maternity services from the Jubilee maternity hospital and the Royal maternity hospital had to be accommodated within its floors, as the McKenna committee proposes, alterations costing £5 million to £6 million, which could not be completed until the year 2000 at the earliest, would have to be made. It is claimed that the relocated services would then have a 25-year life span.
However, the Royal maternity hospital, although admittedly the building is 60 years old, was designed to handle up to 7,000 deliveries a year, and already houses

Northern Ireland's superb regional neonatal unit, which is known not only the length and breadth of Ireland but far beyond. The unit was opened recently at a cost of about £2 million, has more theatres than are envisaged in the relocation to the city hospital, and could easily and swiftly be adapted to take all the services currently at the Jubilee, at much lower cost.
Indeed, to give the Royal maternity hospital the same 25-year life span believed possible at the Belfast city hospital would cost about £4 million—£2 million less than the current proposal at the city hospital will cost. That does not include the savings that could be made almost immediately because the Royal maternity option would quickly be brought into operation, whereas the proposal involving the city hospital tower could not be implemented until the year 2000 at the earliest.
I admit that I am no economist, but it seems to me that to reject the idea of spending £4 million to enhance a service that is already of high quality, with high standards and a unique and comprehensive range of services, in favour of spending £6 million on a proposal that will offer services that are less accessible and of a lower standard, simply does not make sense. So why is the proposal before the Minister?
The answer is now clear. The object of the acute hospitals project in this case is to utilise fully Belfast city hospital's tower block. I have no hang-up about that; indeed, as a young doctor I worked in the city hospital myself. The Royal hospitals trust has no hang-up about it either, but it has offered Dr. McKenna other more sensible options, which so far all seem to have been rejected. The document "Seeking Balance" does not seem to have sought far enough.
There are strongly held views that the three floors thought necessary to accommodate the maternity services will not be available in the tower from the year 2000. But even if they were likely to be available, no Government and no department of the civil service, no one faced with possible appearances before the Public Accounts Committee, could accept a proposal to commit millions of pounds to what is clearly a contentious recommendation, without serious in-depth investment appraisals being carried out by independent experts.
That would mean that all the options would have to be fully considered, not simply the one proposal about to be put before the Minister. There are at least three other options, which must be fully financially explored.
The first option is to concentrate all the Royal maternity hospital and Jubilee hospital services in the tower of the Belfast city hospital. The second is to leave the services as they are. The third is to look at the maternity services provided by all the hospitals in the Belfast area before making a decision. The final option—the most obvious and sensible one in the circumstances—is to relocate the services from the Jubilee hospital to the Royal maternity hospital site. Without such an appraisal, no Government could possibly approve action that, in the long run, could result in millions of pounds being spent unwisely.
History is often strange. In the case of the maternity services in Belfast area, it is not just strange but bizarre. Just before the trusts were launched in Northern Ireland, the Eastern health and social services board was trying to find ways of saving money. The board produced a number of reports that offered various options as to how services should best be provided within the tight finances that the board expected to be available in the coming years.
One plan produced by the board was to centralise maternity services in the Greater Belfast area. Bearing in mind the then regional strategy, the proximity of the children's hospital to the Royal maternity hospital and various other factors, which hospital found itself faced with a closure plan? It was the Jubilee, and of course there was a massive campaign to keep that hospital open. But that was the recommendation that was made to the Government. Barely three years later, the same board—having failed to bring about the closure of the Jubilee hospital in pre-trust days—is one of the key players in the McKenna committee that produced the proposal to move all maternity services into the Belfast city hospital. Isn't that amazing?
Let me sum up. The document "Seeking Balance", produced by the acute hospitals reorganisation project, wants to move maternity services from the Jubilee maternity hospital and the Royal maternity hospital and relocate them in the upper three storeys of a multi-storey tower block. This proposal is against all the best clinical opinion, which supports the provision of maternity and paediatric services on the same site as is currently provided on the Royal hospital site. The proposal to relocate at the Belfast city hospital will cost a minimum of £6 million, whereas centralisation at the Royal maternity hospital will cost at most £4 million—a saving of £2 million. No financial appraisals have been made of this contentious proposal, and clearly there must be a thorough investigation of all possible options.
The Minister should reject this illogical, ill-conceived and insensitive proposal concerning maternity services. The Department of Health should carry out a thorough review of all hospital services throughout Northern Ireland and, in addition, obtain proper investment appraisals of all other possible options for maternity services other than those currently outlined in the document "Seeking Balance". These will conclude that the only sensible way to provide and to protect these most necessary services is to have them located within the Royal maternity hospital, which is only a few minutes walk from the internationally acclaimed services of the other three hospitals within the Royal trust.
Were the Government to do anything less, they would be ignoring the best options for women and babies. Surely no Minister and no Government would want to compromise these essential services.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) on his good fortune in securing the debate. I commend him for his choice of subject and for the clear manner in which he has set out his concerns and those of his constituents about the current proposals by the acute hospitals reorganisation project for the rationalisation of maternity services between the Belfast City Hospital trust and the Royal Group of Hospitals trust.
I want to make it clear at the outset that the proposal for maternity services has not been made in isolation. It is one of a large number of proposals for 28 specialties that have been put forward by the reorganisation project and not, I wish to make it clear, by my Department. Because those proposals are so closely interrelated, they can be considered properly only as a complete package.
The proposal on maternity services was one of 16 contained in the third project paper, "Seeking Balance", on which consultation finished on 5 April. The project's steering group is at present considering the responses that it received and, in the light of those, will put a final set of recommendations before me for consideration. At that stage, I shall wait to consult further, as I did in relation to the second paper, "A Singular Service". At the end of that process, it will be my responsibility to make the final decisions.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do so as quickly as possible, to remove the uncertainty at both trusts, but not before I have had time to hear and consider fully all the arguments from both sides of this important and emotive issue. I want to emphasise that, whatever my final decisions, the future of the two trusts will not be put in any doubt by the absence of a maternity unit, either in clinical terms or in terms of income.
The Belfast city hospital tower is one of the most modern hospitals in the United Kingdom, and will continue to be a key asset for many years to come. The Government have recently agreed an investment of approximately £65 million for the reconstruction of the Royal Victoria hospital. That is in addition to expenditure of more than £20 million in the Royal Group in the past five years. There could hardly be clearer evidence of our commitment to both those much admired and loved hospitals.
As a prerequisite to discussion of any of the proposals, it is necessary to understand how and why they came about in the first place. We started back in November 1993 when, after extensive consultation over almost two years, the Eastern health and social services board produced its "Strategy for General (Acute) Hospital Services". In the section of the document that focused on maternity services, the board set down its view that one maternity unit in central Belfast could provide the required services both for the local population, and, in terms of specialist services, for the wider board area and Northern Ireland as a whole. The board also commented on the significant support for the concept of one maternity unit in central Belfast that it found during the consultation process.
The board's strategy was then considered by my predecessor, Baroness Denton, and in announcing her decisions in March 1994, she welcomed the fact that not only the board but
both Trusts recognise the need for rationalisation and are willing to play their part in achieving this".
She then asked Dr. James McKenna, then the chief medical officer, to move from that post and lead a steering group on rationalisation.
For the record, the remit of the acute hospitals reorganisation project, as it came to be known, is
to develop and oversee the implementation of a coherent strategy for the reorganisation of services at the RGH Trust and the BCH Trust to provide a sound basis for their future development"—
this is a key point—
having regard to services presently located at other hospitals in the Greater Belfast Area where relevant".
To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the wider remit, I think that there is still within the original remit for the reorganisation project the wherewithal to move beyond the two hospitals, where that is relevant.


It is important to note that the chief executive and clinical director of the RGH and the BCH trusts are members of the steering group.
I want to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's more specific points in the very limited time that he has left me to respond. If I do not cover all his points, I shall write to him and I shall be issuing a press release to the Andersonstown News.
The group's second paper, "A Singular Service", was issued for consultation in mid-1995 and contained proposals for 12 specialties. That paper, too, gained public and professional support and, following further consultation on my part, I endorsed the recommendations at the beginning of this year.
Simultaneously with my announcement on "A Singular Service", the steering group issued for consultation the "Seeking Balance" document, which contains proposals not only for maternity services but for 15 other specialties. It sets out the majority view of the steering group, that maternity services, including gynaecology and neonatology, should be provided in the Belfast city hospital tower rather than the Royal Group of Hospitals site. I do not intend to comment this evening on the pros or cons of that recommendation. It would be wrong for me to do so at this time, as I expect to be asked by the

group to consider its final recommendation, whatever it may be, and to make a decision on the issue. I can, however, make some general comments on the matter.
The view that only one consultant-led maternity unit is required in central Belfast was, as I said, first expressed by the Eastern board in its acute hospital strategy, and was subsequently endorsed by my predecessor, Baroness Denton. There was clear evidence of strong support for the concept during the consultation on the board's strategy. The physical inadequacies of both the present units, the Royal maternity hospital and the Jubilee, were pointed out by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the need for an option appraisal. I agree that the financial aspect of the proposal is important, and I would not pretend otherwise. The demand for health services outstrips the supply of money available and there must be a continuous search for greater efficiency, to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived from existing resources. I give him an undertaking that there will be a need for an option—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.